[PD-dev] proposed new "list" object

[Tim Blechmann]

> I don't understand what you mean by "forbid one-element lists".  These
> are already treated as atoms: [list(, [list 1(, [list one(.  Do you
> mean have the [list] object not accept these as input?  I suppose that
> would depend on where the conversion from list to atom happens.  If it
> happens before the inlet, then that would happen automatically since
> [list] would only accept lists on its inlet.
zero/one element lists are a lovely source for errors ... pd doesn't
have a list type as powerful as other languages ... empty lists should
be treated as bangs, one-element lists as atoms ...
having no zero/one element lists internally, would make pd more robust
... and i don't see that we loose any functionality ... pd is not lisp
...

> It seems to me that these automatic conversions cause a lot of
> confusion and I can't see the benefit or necessity for them.  Could
> anyone elaborate on why this automatic conversions of lists is needed?
>  Does anyone rely on
> it?  I have done a lot of general message processing and I've never
> relied on that behavior.
if i'm debugging a patch and the debugging features (i.e. print) can't
tell me, if i'm handling a one element list or an atom, i don't see a
reason, why they should be handled differently ...
of course, it's no problem to keep the behaviour as it is ... it would
just avoid unnecessary bugs and make handling easier and more reliable
...

cheers ... tim 

-- 
mailto:TimBlechmann at gmx.de    ICQ: 96771783
http://www.mokabar.tk

latest mp3: kMW.mp3
http://mattin.org/mp3.html

latest cd: Goh Lee Kwang & Tim Blechmann: Drone
http://www.geocities.com/gohleekwangtimblechmannduo/

After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space 
would say "I want to see the manager."
				      William S. Burroughs