I think very few people are using [declare]. I think Pd would be
much better off with a well functioning [declare] than just freezing
the current functionality.
.hc
On Jan 23, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
No, I never tried, thinking, as I do, that it couldn't possibly
work :)Anyway, I can't imagine changing it so close to a release, since
anything that could be considered "correct" would take months of testing to get working correctly, so, like it or not, I think I have to try to
figure out what it does and make sre it keeps doing that.cheers Miller
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 05:48:50PM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 08:25 -0800, Miller Puckette wrote:
Hmm. It never occured to me that people would want to put
declare objects inside abstractions (I think it's unwise to do so because there's
no way to contain the declare object's effects to within the abstraction.)That it's adding stuff to the parent patch is a serious bug;
there's no reason to believe that putting declare in abstractions is doing a
useful thing at all at present!please don't feel offended, but did you seriously test [declare]
within abstractions? i did test [declare -stdpath] in pd-0.40.3 (see my
mail in pd-dev [1]) and it works as at least i would expect it: it adds
the path to the abstractions search pathes only, but not to the parent
patch. if this is _not_ the expected behaviour, then lets define some [declare] test environment for all different flags in order to avoid declare confusions in the future.[1] http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2008-01/010643.html
roman
___________________________________________________________ Der fr?he Vogel f?ngt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo!
Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
http://at.or.at/hans/