[PD] [PD-announce] the end of type restrictions

[Mathieu Bouchard]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:

> I was hoping that compatibilty as a goal would be a two-way
> compatibility: Patches, that were developed on DD would also be
> running on MSP-Pd, minus some features like faster graphics or special
> objects like [tracecall] (which would only be like a missing
> external).

missing functionality is missing functionality. It can be missing classes, 
missing methods, it can be nonsense output such as empty symbols, it's 
still missing functionality. I don't know why the addition of any classes 
like [tracecall] [parse] [unparse] [unpost] etc. would be exempt from your 
two-way requirement.

I think that the argument we're having, boils down to whether the
type-checking is a real feature of [unpack].

> So I conclude that your compatibility is a one-way street, which I think 
> is a pity.

Sorry, why does it have to be two-way?... I think that it's a pity that 
you're asking for two-way.

> I just find the disappearing or changing meaning of "0" confusing.

What have you ever used that meaning for?

  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada