On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 10:14 +0800, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 11:20:01PM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 10:04 +0100, Steffen wrote:
On 22/03/2007, at 23.41, Roman Haefeli wrote:
When opening patches by sending messages to pd, the path is
relative to pd's startup-location. when loading other files (text-, audio-, data-files etc) the path is set relative to the location of the patch. since the patch doesn't know, where pd was started, you actually
cannot use relative pathes when opening patches by messages without:Maybe [declare] can help you? (Pd >= 0.40)
i'm afraid, it doesn't. as i understand [declare], it lets you add pathes, so that it finds abstractions or libs. but it doesn't help, when opening a patch by message to pd.
but it's a good point to point to [declare], since it lets you decide between relative to patch and relative to pd. i'd like to have the same opportunity for the [open(-message.
actually there are three different relative paths involved in pd:
- relative to pd
- relative to patch
- relative to start-up location
i claim to deprecate the latter. i think, now everyone knows about my opinion about this topic ;-)
it would be nice to hear more voices. does anything speak _for_ 'relative to start-up location'?
Yep. If I understand your meaning correctly, 'relative to start-up location' is useful in situations where you are building an application that uses Pd at it's core. You want the patches to start up correctly no matter where the user installs the entire package for Puredata+Gem+application patches. This is the case with the Ergates program I announced on this list a while ago. I'm building a windows installer for it (very slowly) and I don't think it would work without relative to start-up paths.
hm.... i think i see, what you mean. whenever a set of patches and/or externals is packed together with a startup-file (bash-script for unix, bat-file for windows), it seems to make sense to specify pathes relative to the start-up location for [open(-message. i say 'it seems', because - afaict - this 'relativity' to start-up in the [open(-message is never really used. when you open the patches directly from the script using the '-open' option, you don't need the [open(-message in pd it-self. and when you afterwards open other patches from the main-patch, you could easily open them with pathes relative to the patch. as far as i can see it, there is still no case, where you really need 'relative to start-up'. if i missed your point here, can you please elaborate a bit more, why Ergate _does_ need 'relative to start-up' for [open(-message?
roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de