[PD-dev] loaderHEX bug report

[Thomas Grill]

IOhannes m zmoelnig schrieb:

> Thomas Grill wrote:
>
>>>
>> using my loader patch the naming of the loader function would be 
>> irrelevant since it's just including in a chain of loader functions, 
>> starting with the classic (now called sys_loader_lib_internal) PD 
>> loader.
>
>
> so this basically means, we could write an external that provides the 
> character escaping loader (and would not have to patch pd-core)

exactly

>
>>
>> Concerning the setup function naming - how about xyz_altsetup ?
>> it's true that it should be distinguished from the old naming, but 
>> should not have a prefix that excludes some object names.
>
>
> again the problem with this is, that the current escaping does (for 
> "readability" replace "invalid" characters by "0x??" where "??" is the 
> hex-value of the character. starting a function-name with numbers is 
> generally a bad idea, if you want a compiler to read it.
> so that's why we thought of a prefix that guarantees a valid indentifier.
> prefixing "setup_" (which i still think is nice ,-)) would solve both 
> the problem with valid id's and establish a distinct naming scheme 
> (which, as hans pointed out, could also be seen as a problem)
>
oh right.... i don't really care about the exact naming scheme

Thomas

-- 
Thomas Grill
http://grrrr.org