[PD-dev] from t_symbol to t_class

[Jonathan Wilkes]

----- Original Message -----
> From: IOhannes zmölnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>
> To: pd-dev at iem.at
> Cc: 
> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 9:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] from t_symbol to t_class
> 
> On 01/12/2013 12:04 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
>>>>>  In C would I just make a struct with fields of t_symbol,
>>>>> 
>>>>>  t_class, and a pointer to link to the next one?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  Yeah, a linked list would work fine, probably not as efficient as 
> the c++ hash structure (but lots easier to maintain).  One nit-to-pick:  Use a 
> t_class pointer, which is a t_pd.
>> 
>> 
>>  Hm... since the code to add new classes to the list will probably
>>  end up looking exactly like the code to add symbols to the
>>  symbol table, what if I just bloat the _symbol struct by adding
>>  a t_class *s_class?  Would that affect performance?
> 
> it would break binary compatibility.
> 
> there's no good reason to add hash-like lookups to t_symbol (your only 
> reason is convenience).

and avoiding code duplication.

> true, there's an s_thing there, but that's mainly for performance 
> reasons (looking up symbol->class mappings is usually outside a 
> performance critical path)(and having s_thing in t_symbol is very ugly)
> 
> 
>> 
>>  Then searching for an existing class would be easy-- just do
>>  a gensym and check if its s_class exists.
>> 
> 
> but checking whether a class exists, is as simple as calling zgetfn on 
> pd_objectmaker.
> i think this is _quite_ easy.

Well yes.  I meant searching for a class and _returning_ a class pointer.

So without adding/revising code inside class_new, is creating an instance
the only way to get access to the class attributes?

-Jonathan

> 
> 
> fgmasdr
> IOhannes
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>