#177 some suggestions for using error(), verbose(), etc.


Since Pd now has the nice log level handling, here is a commit from Pd-extended 0.43.1 that can be taken as suggestions for how to use error() and verbose() to make the Gem debug messages more useful. Right now they are very verbose and in the '2 - normal' level, and can be confusing especially to newbies.

Here's the commit in question, you can get the diff file from it too:

(and sorry I mistakenly committed to the old pd-gem svn, ignore that)


  • Hans-Christoph Steiner

    apply with: cd Gem && patch -p2 < mypatch.diff

  • IOhannes m zmölnig

    please be a bit more verbose about "related fix", so it is not necessary to open yet another link and inspect the svn commit.

  • Hans-Christoph Steiner

    I fixed a name clash of Pd's error() and local var called 'error'

  • IOhannes m zmölnig

    unfortunately either your patch-file or sourceforge-dl is broken (at least the "zip" file seems to be html), and the diff from the svn does not apply to current "master".
    i'd be happily including the patch if you could provide one for current Gem.

  • IOhannes m zmölnig

    • status: open --> pending
  • Hans-Christoph Steiner

    • status: pending --> closed
  • Hans-Christoph Steiner

    Gem produces lots of messages to the Pd window, which is useful. I think they could be much more useful if they were posted at the different levels that the new log levels in the Pd window gives us. Someone who knows Gem and uses it is much more qualified to determine whether any given message should be posted at a level fatal, error, normal, debug, or verbose. I was just hoping to spread the idea. What's included here are really just trivial changes to illustrate the idea of how logpost()/verbose()/error/etc. could be used in Gem. Its easier to write code than words to describe code, so they are intended to be read more than applied.



Cancel  Add attachments

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

No, thanks