On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Dec 30, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
But how does the type of those cords represent anything else than
limitations of the implementation? How does the choice of considering those
things as distinct types, and the choice to not auto-convert between types,
constitute wise design decisions, beyond just being things that we have to
accept as fact in the context of Pd?
Its a design choice, its part of the language.
This is not an answer to any of the above questions,
Unless you're asserting that I should not ask such questions.
Any implementation would have to include that in order to be compatible.
And that's false, unless you include as a requirement that programs that
fail to run with pd should also fail with any replacement of pd (which is
usually not something considered a requirement).
Removing type constraints doesn't break compatibility,
It's not like removing all type information, which would break the parts
of programs that make decisions based on type information.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
| Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
