[PD] [change] bug?

[Jonathan Wilkes]

On 09/24/2013 10:16 AM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
> Ah but then if [change] used null by default, it wouldn't actually 
> work by default ... that seems far worse then the reasonable default of 0.

If it had _originally_ defaulted to null and had a "reset" message
or something to return it to null state, that would be the
reasonable behavior.  Especially if Pd had a (sensible) user-facing
API to check for existence of floatargs instead of bashing them to zero,
because then the user wouldn't always take for granted that no
floatarg probably means "0".

But the null behavior can be achieved with a relatively painless hack,
and amending [change] would break patches and create more
complexity so I wouldn't argue to change that behavior now.

-Jonathan

>
> On Sep 23, 2013, at 10:19 PM, pd-list-request at iem.at 
> <mailto:pd-list-request at iem.at> wrote:
>
>> *From:*Mario Mey <mariomey at gmail.com <mailto:mariomey at gmail.com>>
>> *Subject:**Re: [PD] [change] bug?*
>> *Date:*September 23, 2013 6:55:36 PM CDT
>> *Cc:*pd-list <pd-list at iem.at <mailto:pd-list at iem.at>>
>>
>>
>> Well, if it is me... yes, I would like to have NULL as init value.
>
> --------
> Dan Wilcox
> @danomatika
> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com>
> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20130924/eb2834e6/attachment-0001.htm>