On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 17:55 -0800, Miller Puckette wrote: > Actually, I think it would be a bad idea to have an abstraction affect the > search path of the containing patch. There would be no way for the patch to > know about the stuff getting added to the path until the abstraction gets > loaded... but you need the path in place to figure out where the abstraction > should be searched for. > > I think (probably as you're saying below) that an abstraction's declarations > should affect only itself and things called from within it.
hi again my report was bogus due to some other bug i just discovered. the problem is _not_ that a [declare] directly expands the pathes of any 'ancestral' patch. in fact, if a patch containing an abstraction or a child of an abstraction containing a [declare] object is saved, the patch is saved with a hidden declare line: #X declare -stdlib extra/list-abs; but there is no line: #X obj 8 8 declare -stdlib extra/list-abs; and therefore no object [declare] appears in the patch, when opening it afterwards. otoh, if the patch is saved before adding a [declare] to the abstraction, then the [declare] of the [abstraction] does _not_ expand the pathes of the parent patch. roman ___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev