On 11/14/24 13:45, Christof Ressi wrote:
i don't really see why we cannot consider sending a message to a global receiver to be part of the API, at least for procedures that do not return anything.
>
Because this is not idiomatic. I really don't want to assemble a Pd message just to make an API call. Do you know of any other API that is *only* accessible through a Pd message?
tuning dsp on/off? fast-forwarding?
in the worst case (of an older Pd version that does not yet have the given message), Pd just spits out an error ("unknown message").
>
You just hit another downside of Pd messages: no opportunity for error handling
and in this case, we don't even need error handling.we can do a runtime check of the Pd version and don't trigger an error in the first place.
if instead we bake it into a proper C function call, then an older Pd version will simply refuse to load the external that "naively" uses the function (without checking whether the function actually exists).
>
That's why we now have sys_getfunbyname() :)
yes. but with Pd I prefer to be very conservative.so I'll wait a couple of years to make sure that practically all installations of Pd that might use my externals do have the sys_getfunbyname()
mgfdr IOhannes
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- pd-dev@lists.iem.at - the Pd developers' mailinglist https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/pd-dev@lists.iem.at/message/LGCJGQIITWEBPYTDINVXMPLU763KLP5T/
