[PD-dev] overriding "internals"
Hans-Christoph Steiner
hans at eds.org
Sun Nov 11 01:20:59 CET 2007
On Nov 10, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>> On Nov 10, 2007, at 7:45 AM, Andy Farnell wrote:
>>>
>>> This sounds interesting Hans. The question would be, what
>>> is the default/empty behaviour of Pd with no internals at all?
>>>
>>> Does it just become a framework for connecting objects (the Pd way)?
>>
>> Yeah, pretty much. It leads to the question, what are Pd's
>> essential "reserved words"?
>
> I consider the objects currently in Pd-core the essential ones, if
> alone for practical reasons. But also technically they are a good base
> selection.
Reserved words are different than essential functions. Here are the
C reserved words:
http://lib.daemon.am/Books/C/apb/apb.htm
Try to write Pd without calloc, sprintf, etc. yet they are not
reserved words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_word
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"Free software means you control what your computer does. Non-free
software means someone else controls that, and to some extent
controls you." - Richard M. Stallman
More information about the Pd-dev
mailing list