Re: [PD] Basic send historical issue 32 bits / 64 bits

[Roman Haefeli]

On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 10:43 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 12/20/22 08:10, Lucas Cordiviola wrote:
> > hi,
> > 
> > you should *not* convert the list to a symbol:
> 
> totally.
> [l2s] just adds a lot of overhead, for no benefit.

The reason it used to work even with [l2s] is unrelated to 32bit vs.
64bit. Earlier versions of Pd didn't escape spaces in symbol atoms, so
when the symbol got out of Pd, i.e. written to file or sent through
network, the symbol containing spaces became a list of symbol atoms.

Roman


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Basic send historical issue 32 bits / 64 bits

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

On 12/20/22 08:10, Lucas Cordiviola wrote:

hi,

you should *not* convert the list to a symbol:


totally.
[l2s] just adds a lot of overhead, for no benefit.


you should send a list so that later [route] can do its job:

[pack 0 0 ]
|
[list prepend send]
|
[netsend]



that should read

|
[list prepend send]
|
[list trim]
|
[netsend]

apart from that, i totally agree with lucas.

gfasdmr
IOhannes


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list