> So basically [declare] only was "allowed" in a toplevel patch.

You write as if you aren't a time traveler.

[declare] has had this behavior for at least a decade.  That's more than
enough time for the ninjas to test and package it up to use in the manner
described by the OP.

What is the cost of leaving a hook for functionality that has value to the community?  (I count two documented uses on the list, both geared toward
a larger community of users.)  If the cost is old lines of code and a creator/flag,
it should remain. If it's substantially greater than that, I'd be interested to here the technical argument for removing it.

Keep in mind there are way more obscure old code paths-- [template], for example...

-Jonathan


On Sunday, May 8, 2016 5:56 AM, Frank Barknecht <fbar@footils.org> wrote:


On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 12:09:04AM +0000, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list wrote:
> Hi Jerome,If you're saying that your patches used to work and they now break,
> do file a bug about it.  Others on the list have mentioned using
> [declare] for this purpose-- I never have but it's a reasonable use case.

Using [declare] in abstractions has never been an encouraged practice,
The 0.41 helpfile includes this warning:

'WARNING: you might want to avoid putting "declare"
statements inside abstractions, as their effects will extend
to the calling patch. As of version 0.41, "declare path" is
ignored inside abstractions, although, probably unwisely,
"-stdpath" takes effect (on the calling patch as well as the
abstraction.)'

So basically [declare] only was "allowed" in a toplevel patch.

I think it is was wise, that the confusing side effect of
[declare] "extending to the calling patch" was removed.

Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht                                    _ ______footils.org__


_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list