On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Well, a bad example then, what about "x0" instead of "0x", or whatever doesnt start as a numeric value.
0x was chosen since it is the way that C declares hex values. Instead of creating some arbitrary syntax, why don't we stick to the well known ones and save the brain space for other details. HTML/XML style &entities; won't work, nor will emacs style \201 characters.
Yes, I know. I just thought that if you need give away some possible names for externals (like all those with 0x in the current solution), then it seems a bit strange that you give away even more names (all alt_.. whatever) just to work around the problem that the sequence you where choosing in the first place doesn't fit all cases.
You could also say that everything with x[0..9,a..f,A..F][0..9,a..f,A..F], or hex[0..9,a..f,A..F][0..9,a..f,A..F], or .. Starting the escape sequence with a number seems to generate a problem.
The C tradition is a strong argument, but the functionality is not obvious so you would have to document it in any case. At the end its a question of taste, ... I dont have a really strong opinion, but I disklike the setup switching as well as the additional prefix solution because they complicate the loading and introduce additional paradigms (which have to be documented too).
Guenter
.hc
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
- Eldridge Cleaver
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev