I don't know the details, but I believe it was just choosing an unused number to represent the type. Then also not using a keyword. Ultimately, there could be something like /etc/services where we can register these numbers. Or maybe they could just be included in the Pd headers.
http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2008-04/011257.html .hc On May 8, 2008, at 10:33 PM, Martin Peach wrote: > Could someone point me to IOhannes' technique? If it makes sense > I'll give it a go during the next week. > > Martin > > >> From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: pd-dev List <pd-dev@iem.at> >> Subject: [PD-dev] removing string types from pd-extended release >> Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 20:44:09 +0200 >> >> >> Hey, >> >> We talked about this in the recent past. Could someone who knows the >> details remove the declarations of the string type from branches/pd- >> extended/0.40? Or shall I just remove the whole patch? I want to >> include string support, but using the technique that IOhannes laid >> out, which should be possible without patching Pd (AFAIK). >> >> .hc >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> ---- >> >> Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. - >> David Zicarelli >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PD-dev mailing list >> PD-dev@iem.at >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- All information should be free. - the hacker ethic _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev