I said creating 2 arrays with the same name DID NOT give a warning, so that looked like a bug to me
2018-05-07 15:22 GMT-03:00 Liam Goodacre <liamg...@hotmail.com>: > I didnt know you could have two [array define] with the same name without > printing "warning: *arrayname*: multiply defined", and this feels like a > bug to me, because what's the use case here? I treid using [array set] and > it only did set one of the arrays... (the first one) > > > The use is to warn you against using multiple [array define]'s of the same > name! That's a dangerous thing to do, since you're never going to know > which array is being used (unless you happen to remember which one you > created first). > > There are two possibilities: either you want each instance of the array to > be unique. In that case, use $0. Or, you want only one array. In that case, > put it outside the abstraction. > > well, by using [array set] it gives you the "warning: *arrayname*: > multiply defined", so there you go... I say this is not "value" behaviour, > as you still only have one defined array to access > > > PD is complaining that you have multiple [array define]'s, not multiple > [array set]'s. You can have as many [array set]'s of the same name as you > want. > > However, you're right that it seems to take an [array set] to trigger this > warning message, which is a bit confusing. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Alexandre Torres Porres <por...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* 07 May 2018 19:11 > *To:* Liam Goodacre > *Cc:* Pd-list > > *Subject:* Re: [PD] static array/text > > I didnt know you could have two [array define] with the same name without > printing "warning: *arrayname*: multiply defined", and this feels like a > bug to me, because what's the use case here? I treid using [array set] and > it only did set one of the arrays... (the first one) > > 2018-05-07 13:41 GMT-03:00 Liam Goodacre <liamg...@hotmail.com>: > > Seems like the "value behaviour" is something that could be implemented in > [array define] with a new flag, right? > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the [array] objects already have [value] like > behavior, in that you can have multiple objects referencing the same array. > The difference is that with [value], the reference is implicit while with > [array] it is explicit (ie. [array define]). > > The only thing a flag could do would be to tell [array define] to accept > the first instance of a particular argument and reject the rest. But this > would lead to a lot of confusion since you could have lots of empty [array > define]'s scattered around the place. > > The best solution is surely to put the array in a parent patch of the > abstraction. If you don't mind putting it there yourself, you can do as > Ingo suggested. If you want it to happen automatically, then there are neat > dynamic patching solutions available. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Pd-list <pd-list-boun...@lists.iem.at> on behalf of Alexandre > Torres Porres <por...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* 07 May 2018 15:46 > *To:* Pd-list > *Subject:* Re: [PD] static array/text > > Seems like the "value behaviour" is something that could be implemented in > [array define] with a new flag, right? > > 2018-05-07 10:19 GMT-03:00 Antoine Rousseau <anto...@metalu.net>: > > In moonlib you can find [sarray] and [slist], which implement the [value] > behaviour (i.e multiple declarations of a shared data) for array and list > of symbols. > They are also dynamically re-assignable. > > > Antoine Rousseau > http://www.metalu.net <http://metalu.net> __ htt > p://www.metaluachahuter.com/ > <http://www.metaluachahuter.com/compagnies/al1-ant1/> > > > 2018-05-07 13:47 GMT+02:00 Ingo Stock <m...@ingostock.de>: > > Maybe you can just put the text/array object into the main file, like in > the attached demo? > > best, ingo > > > On 05/07/2018 12:02 AM, Dan Wilcox wrote: > > Is there one way to define a "static" table or text data that can be > > shared among abstractions? I have a few abstractions which use lookup > > tables and I realize now that they are basically creating a copy with > > each instance when they could really share the same data directly. I > > suppose this would be somewhat related to [value]. > > > > -------- > > Dan Wilcox > > @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> > > danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com> > > robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/li > stinfo/pd-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/li > stinfo/pd-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/li > stinfo/pd-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/li > stinfo/pd-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ > listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list