Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I think its a really bad idea to name functions using names that have
existing in standard headers for decades, especially when that header is
i do not recall any function in pd with a name "y1()".
it is a simple stupid variable, with a _quite_ descriptive name (e.g.
"upperleft_y" would be more descriptive)
used in the same project. So must more C devs since gcc warns of this
condition by default. The warning should stay so that we don't get more
such conditions.
well, having variable shadowing others is not the end of the world.
one of the benefits of variable shadowing is locality. at the same time
this is it's curse.
after all, we have been discussing to get a similar mechanism into pd
for ages (think namespaces without prefixes!). maybe we should rethink this.
fixed soon doesn't seem like the good solution to me. Instead it should
be set to "Postponed", "later", "Remind", "Wont Fix", something that
communicates why its being ignored and makes it easy to find in the future.
i am with you.
mfga.sdr
IOhannes
_______________________________________________
PD-dev mailing list
PD-dev@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
