[PD-dev] loader: 0.40 or devel_0_39 ?

[Mathieu Bouchard]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Miller Puckette wrote:

> 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".

how well does that handle a class called [/], such as the one used for 
division? can that one be namespaced like others?

  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
| Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada