Accessing parameter reference outside the function call

[Lindon]

@Christoph-Hart yep - understood. I would normally never do this sort of thing, I was (however) under the impression that the UI control callbacks had a mechanism to stop this happening - I have no idea where I got this idea from -- early documentation?? My dumb mis-read ...as you say in this (and all subsequent ) situations like this I will execute the "actual" processes I want to see happen - rather than using the convenience of calling .changed() on sibling controls...

[Christoph Hart]

To be honest I vaguely remember that I've already added a recursion check specifically to the changed call but that is like 5-6 years ago.

I would normally never do this sort of thing

I understand, a friend of yours wrote that code, classic Lindon :)

[Lindon]

@Christoph-Hart said in Accessing parameter reference outside the function call:

To be honest I vaguely remember that I've already added a recursion check specifically to the changed call but that is like 5-6 years ago.

I would normally never do this sort of thing

I understand, a friend of yours wrote that code, classic Lindon :)

"Friend"? wot you think I have friends?.... I just have t-shirts.

[d.healey]

I remember the recursion check too and relied on it for some stuff, sure I mentioned it in a video.

[d.healey]

I just did a test and this problem was introduced in the last few days with all the faust commits, prior to that there was no issue because of HISE's recursion protection. A build from October 8th works.

Apparently some guy called Christoph was going to introduce a stack based way of handling this to make it more robust ;) https://forum.hise.audio/topic/797/panel-changed-recursion/3

[Christoph Hart]

Can you make an example snippet that works on October 8th?

[d.healey]

HiseSnippet 1090.3oc0WssaiSDFdbR8plvwE1G.q8prhkJ6cKEPqVUSyATfdHhjsKRbwxjwiSFkwyXrGWZDZk3MfK4VdT3QYEOAbCWC+isisCMMsMpKG7EQY9OMe+msGDIIz3XYDxnwn4gTjwaZNbtPMs8TLSf52QS374pDkLhg4nClGhiiodHCi5etVBiFagRe988O.ywBBsjDBcpjQnGxBXpRpCb+RFm2C6QGwBpH8tt8IRQaIWl.notoMJDSlgmPOFqEqlIx3Nc8X.PFpvJZLxXqCjdyGNU98hL4OkEyFyo5CNngfgxH2Sx8zHVSE0dJi6MXgWGi.qLnLFTOKFbOyiXdrB5kwh2MkgUoFUiGF0VFd0WBdNUgmcE3sBHYTARakAo6ZNjDwBUkbz34ML6KTzHeLD1qBkLYQ07qY1VBRHT6DfmQ6EAGJzn0d11OzB94AOoYSHzGqrNCGYMSL115oVKzaBU0VFDJEvgV2Wy79Z4YBNSPs7SDDESJrjBMKsRQRdKxBMdHXRdB8AM+glM.Ab1IlpNUSoUF8mjSlLEKlP8ZADdIX80c4ZSjeOswb9XnHo0R29EbGm04NNWt63bUti8pcG6qs63rF2woh6j8TAcGKUzSDsRARyW1z5uyx2ek7xMImFsR15Fxn0oXKQRvXZT0vfVPnJc4ReyKuzuZmIIKtTQPonufoNIjJtr9UTdvDZSpkiJPTUZSxam2jLjy7nQHFzKbGScBAkh27YM+R3S+s8QWWccVgtOqeGrBqaTyAC.vPZjho8ciNzyfodYssML6PimojgonMO0CV9pv64EyE+0wtyKOvcCXddb5.YLSmZJGe9p8UzyUKFobsuJmJW02FeSuJHAcwQUvPRoWBGqVdxodcQNCs0pNtRORR.2x7pqSd8LN8cxvno4g8NIGXv+rJPryUCrdQzuKgJHUHtsqdeV+xXj6O49b7YTeYTPdgPg5GRm.WTUJinP1B15Rpt5bXfTplxDSVdK48bOTJC6Jvfq6U0HClhi088v3jkLCX1QxivwvP+1bIYVUlsShUxfE.McG6PEMLs313aL2a2cfG+OP+6m1F94wmb6bFcCxsNqO2V6ZV+89oo4h7oNg+uUIXiBXBuKQ4D4TX9dYufQI0qQ83yhoivovnLy1WbFLOpZEBBUZziSmhWv6GetaV01xkZL2NTebBOaCWNc2l+bW2aszG5Fk8JZ79eS16Q+GK68p+X6u3e9r2cMGvTjoqd3esUDUPnasbG5huc+aY102mRTk.bKyde8qmWkG8UxDELD+HrJhAaZMgj2P3CbHT31EBJW+xRF0z42ry15yoCtoBuzC+I7jyzQe1HmoyBln.LIR9BRVAhtdc6TJ.lDoe5TCyizmsJdUFSS6crQv5c1KHDs6+gvh7Uqyi1.cd7FnytafNezFnydafNe7FnymrVcziI9L3apCxZG.BC5ls00nX0tQczeAG5GLiB

[Christoph Hart]

@d-healey Hmm, I see so the trivial example you've posted was catched by the existing recursion protection whose existence I forgot, but the example of Lindon's "friend" found a nasty way to bypass that protection somehow so I needed to pull out more heavier weapons which now break every recursive changed() call.

So I would recommend to remove the new error message for now and then spent an evening with a glass of red wine and the poster child of beautiful code that is Lindon's snippet to find a better solution.

[d.healey]

@Christoph-Hart Sounds like a good evening :)

[Lindon]

@Christoph-Hart my work here is done...or more correctly my "friend's work"