[PD-dev] 0.48-1 release plans

[Dan Wilcox]

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 <msp at 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 <msp at 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/>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20171202/303dec0d/attachment-0001.html>