[PD] [*] vs [*~]

[Mathieu Bouchard]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
>
>> But how does the type of those cords represent anything else than 
>> limitations of the implementation? How does the choice of considering those 
>> things as distinct types, and the choice to not auto-convert between types, 
>> constitute wise design decisions, beyond just being things that we have to 
>> accept as fact in the context of Pd?
>
> Its a design choice, its part of the language.

This is not an answer to any of the above questions,
Unless you're asserting that I should not ask such questions.

> Any implementation would have to include that in order to be compatible.

And that's false, unless you include as a requirement that programs that 
fail to run with pd should also fail with any replacement of pd (which is 
usually not something considered a requirement).

Removing type constraints doesn't break compatibility,
It's not like removing all type information, which would break the parts 
of programs that make decisions based on type information.

  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
| Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada