On Aug 16, 2009, at 10:46 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
So there has been a revived discussion of adding "tooltip" support
to inlets/outlets, based on Günter's old patch. I think we should
open up the discussion again to see if we can come up with a
solution that Miller would accept. I believe his original
objection was based on the fact that the patch added a record to
the t_class struct. So I was thinking that instead of storing the
tooltip data in t_class, it could be stored using a custom struct
like t_inletdescription that was then added to object's class.
so the new objection will be based on the fact that the patch added
a record to the t_class struct?... i mean, this struct doesn't make
any difference with the original objection.
Do you have a record of the original objection? I am just operating
on memory.
.hc
I guess the advantage of putting it into t_class is that there
would only be one copy of it.
Indeed.
That makes sense since every instance should need the same data.
Why does this make sense? I mean, how can you actually tell that
every instance should need the same data?
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer science is no more related to the computer than astronomy is
related to the telescope. -Edsger Dykstra
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
