There's a tricky bit though - what when the user copy/pastes an array define object meaning to later change the name - in this case is it appropriate to print the warning? I'm not sure.
On the larger topic, I like the idea of having a "-shared" or "-s" flag to [array define]. I can think some of th details through but not all of them yet... When there are [struct array -s -k] objects, perhaps some in abstractions and some in 'main' patches, where do the contentes get saved? Should it be the case that all "-k" instances save their contents, whether in abstractions orin 'main' patches, and then should it be considered a conflict when loading a patch causes one to be 'restored' twice? ... and incidentally, whatever is done I guess it should be that way for "value", "array", "text", and (eventually) "scalar". The situation wih the old Max mtable object was a bit of a mess because I didn't have it thought all the way through ... cheers Miller On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 02:50:26AM +0000, Liam Goodacre wrote: > > I said creating 2 arrays with the same name DID NOT give a warning, so that > looked like a bug to me. > > Oh yeah, I can see how that is confusing. It would be nice if you got the > error message when multiple [array define]'s are loaded. > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
