[PD] feature request for [list]

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Thu Apr 20 00:23:15 CEST 2006


On Apr 18, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Chris McCormick wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:01:29PM +0200, pd-list-request at iem.at  
> wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:14:46 +0200
>> From: Frank Barknecht <fbar at footils.org>
>> Subject: Re: [PD] feature request for [list]
>>
>> Hallo,
>> Chris McCormick hat gesagt: // Chris McCormick wrote:
>>
>>> So basically I'd like to see a [list length] and an [s2l].
>>
>> You can do "list length" with a simple counter and "list split"
>> already. It's called [list-len] in [list]-abs.  However unfolding a
>> list using [until] and [list split] is very slow.  I did benchmarks
>> comparing it to [drip] and it takes ages longer. As a "drip"  
>> operation
>> is used so often - Matju once compared it to the "for"-loop of other
>> languages - it is important that "drip" is fast, and not only fast,
>> but very fast.  I'd much prefer to have a fast unfolding operation
>> over getting "list length".
>
> Yes, good point.
>
>> And negative indices are just very convenient, and the object is
>> already in.
>>
>> I don't think that [s2l] should become part of [list]. To me
>> it is a typical string operation, like Perl's split and  
>> string.split()
>> in Python.
>
> Agreed. If someone made patches against Miller's Pd and put it in SF
> patch tracker would these probably make it in?

Yes, I think it would.  Plus if its a clean patch, then we can easily  
include it in Pd-extended until its in Miller's Pd.

.hc

________________________________________________________________________ 
____

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
                                                               -  
Eldridge Cleaver





More information about the Pd-list mailing list