[PD-dev] 0.48-1 release plans

[Miller Puckette]

I think the use of "t_int" in m_pd.h is incorrect - it should have been
int.  But it's a mistake I think is now ironed in and we're stuck with it.


M

On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 10:25:07PM +0100, Dan Wilcox wrote:
> 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/>
> 
> 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev at lists.iem.at
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev