[PD] [PD-announce] the end of type restrictions
mpuckett at imusic1.ucsd.edu
Mon Jul 23 03:40:42 CEST 2007
But to return to the original question, if my 'improvement' of
pack destroys the nice symmetry of pack and unpack arguments, this
certainly calls the design of unlack into question, since the only
reason its arguments are as they are is that they were designed so
in the context of a no-longer-extant pack.
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 09:21:38PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, Miller Puckette wrote:
> >On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 05:12:31PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> >>There's no way to use "tea" and "for" as being default values in that
> >Sure enough... It does not work in Pd. I checked and it still worked in
> >Max/FTS vintage 1993, so it's Pd at fault :)
> If you implemented that, then how do you feel about the inability of
> symbols "f" "s" "p" to be used as default values?
> How do you determine that something like that is Pd's fault?... by
> opposition to being an improvement in design compared to Max/FTS. I bet
> that in your absence I could've found a bunch of people who would've
> thought that this is intentional... perhaps including me.
> _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
> | Mathieu Bouchard - t?l:+1.514.383.3801, Montr?al QC Canada
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
More information about the Pd-list