[PD] symbolarray

[lsw]

... and of course get_symbol_length would be handy also. :)

Am 20.04.2009, 18:10 Uhr, schrieb lsw <lsw at floppy35.de>:

> Hi Frank,
>
> unfortunatily pd has next to no string functions (without externals).
> Otherwise it shouldn't be too hard, to write a hashfunction
> that retrieves a numeric hash for a given symbol, which could
> be used as struct index.
> At least something like get_character_of_symbol_at_position
> and get_ascii_value_of_character would be needed to do so.
>
> All the best,
> Lsw~
>
> Am 20.04.2009, 15:32 Uhr, schrieb Frank Barknecht <fbar at footils.org>:
>
>> Hallo,
>> Chris McCormick hat gesagt: // Chris McCormick wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 03:52:33PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>>> > Now we still need maps/hashes.
>>>
>>> Maybe this is something close:
>>> <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2008-03/060712.html>
>>
>> Yeah, but I was thinking of something faster than walking around in a  
>> textfile
>> would be. :) The really nice thing about data structure arrays is that  
>> they are
>> very fast. The not so nice things are that they only accept integers  
>> for lookup
>> and that the structure of the thing they store has to be predefined.
>>
>> What I would love would be a "map" type field for [struct] so you could  
>> say:
>>
>> [struct item float i]
>>
>> [struct example map items item]
>>
>> just like for the "array" field. But now the index to lookup a map  
>> element
>> would be a symbol key.
>>
>> The setter could look like this:
>>
>>             [symbol key(
>>             |
>>             [mapelement example items]
>>  [100\      |
>>  |          |
>>  [set item i]
>>
>> and a getter like this:
>>
>>  [symbol key(
>>  |
>>  [mapelement example items]
>>  |
>>  [get item i]
>>  |
>>  [100\
>>
>> All in analogy to [element] for arrays
>>
>> Ciao
>



--