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 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
