I think the use of "t_int" in m_pd.h is incorrect - it should have been int. But it's a mistake I think is now ironed in and we're stuck with it.
M On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 10:25:07PM +0100, Dan Wilcox wrote: > I was following IOhannes' prompt about t_int: "rule of thumb: never use it > for anything but passing data to perform-routines." > > > On Dec 2, 2017, at 10:22 PM, Miller Puckette <m...@ucsd.edu> wrote: > > > > I'm pretty confused about this. I believe it was "t_int" in 0.48-0, and > > I see that your PR changesit from "t_int" to "int" - and I believe > > it has to be "t_int" for back compatibility... > > > > cheers > > M > > > > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 10:16:44PM +0100, Dan Wilcox wrote: > >> I think I had already fixed this: > >> https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/223 > >> <https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/223> (?) Or am I missing > >> something? > >> > >>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:40 PM, Miller Puckette <m...@ucsd.edu> wrote: > >>> > >>> I had one small ouch: I don't think I can compatibly change t_int to int > >>> in m_pd.h (this is mentioned on another thread somewhere). I don't know > >>> how > >>> to make clang pipe down about this short of casting almost every call to > >>> atom_getint*() in the whole tree. Yuck... Maybe it's better just to tell > >>> clang to be more permissive (if that's possible)? > >> > >> -------- > >> Dan Wilcox > >> @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> > >> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> > >> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/> > >> > >> > >> > > -------- > Dan Wilcox > @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> > danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> > robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-dev mailing list > Pd-dev@lists.iem.at > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
