On 09/24/2015 05:16 PM, Miller Puckette wrote: > I don't think there's a ghost of a chance of making this all be sane and > staying back compatible - the only thing I can think to do is make a whole > new parallel structure and have a "compatibility" flag that throws you back > to the old regime.
nah, please don't! i'm pretty sure that for most cases one can achieve backward compatibility by clever re-arrangement of cmdline "-path"s. up until now, playing with paths (and loaders) was near-magic - if not plain black magic. i don't think that many things will break by changing it (in a way that people won't say: "ah, i finally understand how this is supposed to work") supporting *both* behaviours will only lead to unmaintainable code; and either create a lot of code duplication, or lead to a re-implementation of the original code (adding new bugs; do we want to have a compat flag for that as well?) gfmads IOhannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
