Here's another idea: a "catch" object that passes messages from inlet to outlet, but then reports errors (somehow or other) only when those errors occur while forwarding the message.
cheers M On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 04:01:15PM +0200, oliver wrote: > Christof Ressi wrote: > > > > > i quite like the idea of having a canvas-scope for such an object. > > Personally, I would rather prefer that if the error code would be simply > > output by the same object that generated the error. > > that can take a long time, even for vanilla objects ;-) > > and there are so many 3rd party objects out there that would all need to be > modified and re-released in order to fit these quite specific needs. > > if it's not too big a project (IOhannes must decide), i think that such an > object (like [canvaserror]) would do no harm to "everyday users" and would > at least be very handy for those who have a need for it. > > > > > > On 6/14/21 10:37 AM, Peter P. wrote: > > > > Yes, that's a good idea, but what if there are two identical objects > > > > on the same canvas? > > > > > > i think that would be *your* problem. > > > if you want to catch error messages from two instances of the same > > > objectclass, just put them into separate canvases. > > > simple as that. > > I think Peter's concern is valid and it's actually another reason why I > > wouldn't like such a design. > > since it would be part of IEMGUTS (which i think is where it belongs to), > people usually know what they let themselves in for and would design their > patches accordingly. for example, there's no real need for more than one > [soundfiler] or [text define] objects in a canvas... > > > > > Here's another idea, which I don't really love, but which I would prefer > > over your proposed [canvaserror]: > > > > Method calls which can generate an error send the error code to a global > > [errno] object and the user can query the current error state with a > > bang. This would be similar to 'errno' in C. > > > > If the user queries the errno immediately after the method call, Pd's > > determinism guarantees that the error really belongs to that method > > call. We would have to reserve a special value (e.g. "0") to mean "no > > error". > > sounds nice, too. but it wouldn't verbosely specify the type of error, like > the console output, would it ? > > just my 2c > > best > > oliver > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.puredata.info_listinfo_pd-2Dlist&d=DwICAg&c=-35OiAkTchMrZOngvJPOeA&r=XprZV3Fxus2L1LCw80hE4Q&m=8gelwsvceCfl8S54qwd_2K-7Ux1KXfqZmtASQ37VoS0&s=wIaD2xQChyOMZtLEyKYCnIgKliS1TuNuk-shjiuaJGY&e= -- _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list