do functions inside a method remain 'local'?

[human fly]

(before i check this out)

if i put a function inside a method, does have a ‘local’ status?
or will it have the same action (or a conflict) if i use the same
function name in another ‘twin’ method, doing the same thing to
different modulators/components?

or can i specify that a function is local?

eg:

structure12 = function (--mod, --value)

-- sets corresponding option views

	local structure =	panel:getModulatorByName("struct12_pt1"):getValue()
	local SynPcm1 =		panel:getComponent("tabs_SynPcm1_pt1")
	local SynPcm2 =		panel:getComponent("tabs_SynPcm2_pt1")
--
	function see00()
	SynPcm1:setPropertyInt("uiTabsCurrentTab", 0)
	SynPcm2:setPropertyInt("uiTabsCurrentTab", 0)
	end

	if 
	structure == 0 then see00()
        end
end

and then, i would want to use the same code, with a method
called ‘structure34’, addressing similarly named modulators
and components, but with names suffixed 3/4 instead of 1/2,
and keep the same ‘sub’-function names. or would these have
to now have unique names too?

ie: once created, do they remain in memory everywhere else
in the panel, ready to be called? or do they exist only for
that method?

[Puppeteer]

No it’s not local. Everything is global by default. You need to use local before a variable if you want it defined locally. Not sure if you can make methods local.

The Puppeteer
http://godlike.com.au

[human fly]

(answering own post..)

well, it seems ok if i just copy the whole thing and amend
the declarations.

suppose if i had created them externally in a ‘library’ method,
and called them from there, there would be an issue (and functions
would have to check which modulators+components to act on).

[human fly]

hi Puppeteer, missed your post.
as i said, it seems ok, repeating the same function/s identically
within a method –see00(), see01(), see10(), see11()–
i called them that to indicate which of 2 tabs were showing for
2 uiTabs. and in each method, they are addressing different
uitabs (synPcm1+2 pair, and synPcm3+4 pair).

so i can put ‘local ‘ in front of a ‘sub’-function ?
done now, and seems to be ok, so i’m leaving it like that for now.

(as i may end up later with 8 parts, and thus 8x everything – which
i can avoid once i work it out, no doubt – it makes it easier if
i can just rename the declarations at the top and leave the rest
as is (this optimises a couple of methods a lot already).

[Author]

Posts