[PD] GF's [print].

[Mathieu Bouchard]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:

> (i guess that) gf's [print] is meant as a fully compatible [print], with 
> some added features. most users should never notice (unless in a 
> pleasant way). in the specific case here, i consider the behaviour of 
> gf's print to be a bug, which should be fixed (just like zexy's 
> pack/unpack).

An update on this : since then, I corrected some other discrepancies 
between GF's [print] and Pd's [print]. I also introduced the 
CLASS_NOPARENS flag (in GF's class declarations) to say that [print] 
shouldn't parse () in arguments as being nested-lists.

Only the biggest problem is remaining, which is about () in messages going 
to [print]. Back when we were having this discussion, I thought about 
having a flag for () in messages too, but in the end, I decided to just 
remove the whole ()-parsing business from objects, as it's really 
underused, and is going to become even less used. But as of 9.12's release 
last friday (still not announced on pd-list...) I still haven't done that. 
I suppose I could do that for 9.13, perhaps even this week.

  _______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu Bouchard ------------------------------ Villeray, Montréal, QC