[PD-dev] gem vs. mrpeach strings?

IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Sat Nov 10 09:40:28 CET 2007


Martin Peach wrote:
> IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> the [text3d]... objects expect a "string" message with pdstrings
>> (according to moocows stuff).
> 
> OK, so the message [string( is being interpreted by pd as a selector for 
> A_STRING instead of just a message "string", because "string" has become a 
> reserved word.

correct.

my proposal is therefore to entirely skip reserved words when 
introducing new types and solely rely on the atom-type (A_BLOB), rather 
than the list selector.

do you have any strong reason why you need to reserve a selector when 
introducing a new atom-type?
(apart from: "that was the way it seemed to be done")

> 
>> your string-patch adds a special message "string" for your strings.
>> i think that is where the problem comes in: A_GIMME != A_STRING
>>
> 
> The latest version of the patch in cvs calls it A_BLOB instead of A_STRING. 
> Does this resolve the issue? Or will it cause [blob( messages to go wrong?

the problem is not with A_BLOB vs A_STRING, but with use of selectors. 
see above.

fmasdr.
IOhannes




More information about the Pd-dev mailing list