matju already wrote a class to put console posts inside the
patch for the user to handle:
http://artengine.ca/desiredata/gallery/unpost.gif
If people don't like that design, I'd love to see the code that
shows a better way to handle errors from within the patch.
However, I don't think you need (or should encourage)
error-handling inside a patch just to check whether a file
exists. There are already externals for that, too.
-Jonathan
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 6:14 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2015-10-14 12:07, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2015-10-14 09:34, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>> I don't see why [textfile] shouldn't report that to the patch instead of
>> the console.
>
> because it would require a lot of code to be added to all use-cases of
> [ŧextfile] in order to not break the feedback where it is indeed desired
> and needed.
this should have read:
"because it would require code to be added to all uses of [ŧextfile]
where the error is indeed desired and needed."
>
> this *could* be done in a way satisfying to both, if Pd had some kind of
> exception handling.
> however, it doesn't.
>
>
> fgamsdr
> IOhannes
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> [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
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
