On Apr 5, 2008, at 1:07 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > Martin Peach wrote: >> IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >>> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >>>> I am fine with leaving the string patch in this release as it is >>>> if it will be compatible with a generic approach to defining >>>> new atoms types. Can anyone speak to that? >>> >>> does the patch still register the "string" keyword? (and in doing >>> so breaks all other objects that use [string( without the string- >>> atomtype?) >>> >> The latest version registers the "blob" keyword instead, but I >> think it is not necessary for it to register a name at all. > > exactly! > the entire keyword thing is rather a mess anyhow, and i don't think > it should be mimicked anywhere. > introducing a new atomtype should be enough.
Could either of you make any needed changes directly to the pd-0.40- extended branch? I am not sure I know what needs doing. For the idea about naming them from LAC, was that just having a central place to claim macro numbers? .hc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- "It is convenient to imagine a power beyond us because that means we don't have to examine our own lives.", from "The Idols of Environmentalism", by Curtis White _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
