I believe I tried to apply a patch that added the 'altname' business, which then caused some problems, so I rewrote the code to do the same thing better without the extra parameter. I think the string passed in devel_0_39 is simply passed as "classname" in 0.40. For instance, if someone asks for "doo/dah" in devel_0_39 you get "dah" for classname and "doo/dah" for altname; in 0.40 classname is "doo/dah".
cheers Miller On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 10:43:47AM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > > I see that the loader code in Miller's 0.40, Miller's 0.39 and devel_0_39 > are completely different. This means that the diff between the first two > and the diff between the latter two, have a lot of conflicts that can't be > fixed without sitting down and figuring out what should be done. > > So, my question is, is everybody satisfied by Miller's 0.40's s_loader.c ? > If yes, then I can just use that. Else, how should some devel_0_39 > features be added to it? I'm thinking specifically of the altname > parameter, which doesn't appear at all in Miller's. What is it useful for? > > _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... > | Mathieu Bouchard - t?l:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju > | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montr?al QC Canada > _______________________________________________ > PD-dev mailing list > PD-dev@iem.at > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev