[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