[PD-dev] loader: 0.40 or devel_0_39 ?

[Miller Puckette]

I believe I tried to apply a patch that added the 'altname' business, which
then caused some problems, so I rewrote the code to do the same thing better
without the extra parameter.  I think the string passed in devel_0_39 is
simply passed as "classname" in 0.40.  For instance, if someone asks for
"doo/dah" in devel_0_39 you get "dah" for classname and "doo/dah" for
altname; in 0.40 classname is "doo/dah".

cheers
Miller

On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 10:43:47AM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> 
> I see that the loader code in Miller's 0.40, Miller's 0.39 and devel_0_39 
> are completely different. This means that the diff between the first two 
> and the diff between the latter two, have a lot of conflicts that can't be 
> fixed without sitting down and figuring out what should be done.
> 
> So, my question is, is everybody satisfied by Miller's 0.40's s_loader.c ? 
> If yes, then I can just use that. Else, how should some devel_0_39 
> features be added to it? I'm thinking specifically of the altname 
> parameter, which doesn't appear at all in Miller's. What is it useful for?
> 
>  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
> | Mathieu Bouchard - t?l:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
> | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montr?al QC Canada

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