[PD] VASP future
czaja at chopin.edu.pl
Wed Mar 23 14:48:25 CET 2005
Thomas Grill wrote:
> I realized in my own work that it's very hard to express complex stuff
> as PD graphs, and also VASP has the problem of needing to lock arrays
> while working on them, which still isn't really implemented in PD (it is
> in the devel branch, but the future of this isn't clear either).
> The question is now whether i abandon the current PD object
> implementation of VASP and focus on the Python one, or think about a
> side-by-side solution of both systems, probably reducing the
> functionality of the current VASP implementation a bit. There's still
have you been thinking about replacing vasp with "pyobj" (and
possibly "pyarr") python externals, which would allow passing
references to python objects inside pd messages?
This means wrapping PyObject* and PyArrayObject* inside the t_atom
structure. It is generally possible, although, currently, not very
elegant, and not 100% robust. In the "plustot" experiment, I found
out, that until things change on the t_atom scene, the type best
suited for extending is t_symbol. I have faked it into becoming
a reference-counted Tcl_Obj wrapper, which is fool-proof in most
cases, but may fail, of course, and crash Pd, if someone renames
an array to such a faked symbol, etc.
Perhaps, with some discussion and lobbying, we would have an
appropriate Pd atom type some day...
More information about the Pd-list