[PD] [*] vs [*~]

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Dec 31, 2006, at 4:32 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

> 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.


You are free to believe anything you want.  But if you look at all  
the implementations of Java, C, C++, etc. you will see that they all  
handle strong typing, static typing, whatever the exact same way with  
only minor caveats here and there that are usually labeled as  
incompatible.

.hc

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of  
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an  
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps  
it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into  
the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess  
himself of it.            - Thomas Jefferson