I'm including a zip which i'd like to be considered for a potential fix. I think the behavior of relative pathnames used in conjunction with coll/text/etc is incorrect and should be remedied. Take a look at the example patch I have included. if more needs to be explained as to the point I am getting at, just say so. I tihnk it's pretty self explanatory.

I'm including a zip which i'd like to be considered for a potential fix.  I think the behavior of relative pathnames used in conjunction with coll/text/etc is incorrect and should be remedied.  Take a look at the example patch I have included.  if more needs to be explained as to the point I am getting at, just say so. I tihnk it's pretty self explanatory.


relative-filename-glitch-or-prefered-behavior

whoops, instructions.txt should have the following inside of it...

--=--=------=--=------=--=------=--=------=--=------=--=----

1. open open_first.pat, notice that it has a write message attached to a text object. do not close.

2. open sub/open_second.pat... keep open...

3. click on the write message in open_first.pat

ummmmmmmm.txt is written in the "sub" folder. I think this behavior is wrong and can create confusion. I know absolute paths are "best", but I think that a relative filename should stay relative to the path of the patch in which it is invoked.

ummmmmmmm.txt is written in the "sub" folder.  I think this behavior is wrong and can create confusion. I know absolute paths are "best", but I think that a relative filename should stay relative to the path of the patch in which it is invoked.

--=--=------=--=------=--=------=--=------=--=------=--=----


BUMP, c'mon. I zipped up an example and everything!!!!

relative filename glitch or prefered behavior?