[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