On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 19:55 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote: > Hallo, > Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote: > > > On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 16:58 +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > > > Roman Haefeli wrote: > > > > hi > > > > > > > > i cannot get [declare]'s -path-flag working. i tried relative pathes as > > > > well as absolute ones. > > > > > > > > > oh yes, i forgot: that's a problem with [declare]; it only gets executed > > > when the patch is loaded.... > > > > ah, ok. thanks. however, it works only for the patch, that is containing > > the [declare]-object, whereas at the same time a [declare > > -lib /path/to/somelib] makes the objects from the external somelib > > available for all patches running in the same instance of pd. isn't that > > kind of inconsistent? > > This clearly is a bug in [declare]. I now filed a bug report regarding > this behaviour with ID 1714473. Attached is the example I used to > illustrate the bug. >
sorry, i didn't check your declare-test-setup. otherwise, i'd have noticed, that we are not speaking about the same thing. what you found, is a far more complex issue than what i was speaking about. what i meant to be inconsistent: - [declare -lib somelib] makes the objects of the external 'somelib' availabe to ALL patches, not only to the [declare]'s parent patch. - [declare -path somefolder] makes the abstractions from 'somefolder' available ONLY to the parent patch, i.e. the patch, that contains the [declare]. i don't see why abstractions from a certain location should be handled differently than objects from a certain library? shouldn't they be treated the same (at least from the user's point of view)? roman ___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list