Hmm, I think the design is, in fact, wrong. But should I now fix it
(incompatibly)? drat.
M
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 11:10:57PM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 23:04 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Length in list-len.pd in the traditional way is calculated by
serializing
Hallo,
Miller Puckette hat gesagt: // Miller Puckette wrote:
Hmm, I think the design is, in fact, wrong. But should I now fix it
(incompatibly)? drat.
I think you should. I don't think many people have used the length
operation of [list] so far, as 0.40 still is quite new and there isn't
a
Frank Barknecht schrieb:
I guess
the number of users who wanted this is even smaller.
Or to say it in other words... the number is 1.
m.
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Miller Puckette wrote:
Hmm, I think the design is, in fact, wrong. But should I now fix it
(incompatibly)? drat.
I think you should change it, because I doubt that anyone has found a use
for the behaviour of [list length] that would be changed.
_ _ __ ___ _
Hallo,
Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I think this logic makes sense, but I haven't played with it yet.
You don't need to play with it much, it's a decision to make: Do you
want to have [list length] give the same length for 1 2 3 and a b
c and list a b c or
Hi,
I just found out that the new [list length] from Pd-0.40 counts the
length of messages slightly unusual. Counting the elements in a
meta-message like walk the dog will leave out the first element,
walk in the example, and give a result of 2. The proper list
message list walk the dog however
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Frank Barknecht wrote:
I just found out that the new [list length] from Pd-0.40 counts the
length of messages slightly unusual. Counting the elements in a
meta-message like walk the dog will leave out the first element,
walk in the example, and give a result of 2. I can
