[PD-dev] loaderHEX bug report

[geiger]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> > Well, a bad example then, what about "x0" instead of "0x", or whatever
> > doesnt start as a numeric value.
>
> 0x was chosen since it is the way that C declares hex values.  Instead
> of creating some arbitrary syntax, why don't we stick to the well known
> ones and save the brain space for other details.  HTML/XML style
> &entities; won't work, nor will emacs style \201 characters.

Yes, I know. I just thought that if you need give away some possible
names for externals (like all those with 0x in the current solution),
then it seems a bit strange that you give away even more names (all
alt_.. whatever) just to work around the problem that the sequence you
where choosing in the first place doesn't fit all cases.

You could also say that everything with x[0..9,a..f,A..F][0..9,a..f,A..F],
or hex[0..9,a..f,A..F][0..9,a..f,A..F], or ..
Starting the escape sequence with a number seems to generate a problem.

The C tradition is a strong argument, but the functionality is not obvious
so you would have to document it in any case. At the end its a question
of taste, ... I dont have a really strong opinion, but I disklike the
setup switching as well as the additional prefix solution because they
complicate the loading and introduce additional paradigms (which have
to be documented too).

Guenter

>
> .hc
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ____
>
> If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
>
>                             - Eldridge Cleaver
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>