[PD-dev] 0.48-1 release plans

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

On 12/02/2017 11:57 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
> Or (aha) - I could make up new function names for the "int" versions and
> change the pd sources to use them, and declare the existing ones obsolete...?
> 
> In fact, is there any reason one can't just globally replace every call
> to atom_getint and atom_getintarg with the atom_getfloat equivalent - let
> externs blithely call atom_getint and get a t_int back all they want.

i guess atom_getint() is there mainly for Max compat (where an atom
*can* hold integer values).
In a Pd-only land there shouldn't be a difference.

> 
> That would touch a lot of files so if I do it perhaps I should make sure
> to do all the PR-merging I possibly can beforehand.
> 
> AND: there's no reason I can't assign a float to an int without a cast, is
> there?  As I understand it the only clang complaint is int-to-smaller-int
> conversions.  So int x = atom_getfloat(&atom) is still kosher, correct?
> 

i think so.

gfds
IOhannes

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20171205/9106b9dc/attachment.sig>