Hi Jonathan - As far as I know there's no reason not to write out whatever headers you like as long as they don't conflict with "structs" in the patch.
cheers M On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:21:50PM -0700, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list wrote: > Miller, > Is it ok to add (potentially) more "#N struct etc." headers to patch > files, specifically for templates that are defined in that patch? > > It looks like that header is currently written for orphan scalars, or for > scalars whose template might be defined elsewhere (like in a patch or > abstraction which hasn't loaded yet). But I've added some checks in > gtemplate_new to prevent [struct] objects from creating when there are > circular dependencies and/or undefined array element templates. In those > case, having the "#N struct" headers will ensure that the structs will be > able to create when the patch is reloaded. > > This should prevent the user from crashing Pd when manually creating [struct] > objects, while the "#N struct" stuff will let Pd create all the templates it > needs for the patch to load correctly. (Of course someone could still edit a > patch file by hand and cause a circular dependency crash or something, but > I'm not sure how to prevent that.) > > That would leave a single reallocation crasher somewhere in > template_conformglist. It happens when you have scalar with array elements > in it, and you start mucking around with the [struct] args of either the > container or the array element template. (I can't reproduce it reliably yet.) > > -Jonathan > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
