On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Tim Blechmann wrote:
There's one inconvenience with plain "list" since you can't differentiate "list foo" from "foo" using its output; you'd have to use "route list symbol" first and then do whatever you wanted to do differently ("list list foo" for example). It seemed better to leave that to the imagination of programmers, since there seem to be disagreements about it...
well, i'd suggest to forbid one-element lists as much as possible, but treat them as atoms. since pd only handles flat lists, we don't really loose features ... on the other hand it will hopefully avoid list vs. symbol/float/pointer bugs in patches ... would make it easier to write bug-free patches...
I don't understand what you mean by "forbid one-element lists". These are already treated as atoms: [list(, [list 1(, [list one(. Do you mean have the [list] object not accept these as input? I suppose that would depend on where the conversion from list to atom happens. If it happens before the inlet, then that would happen automatically since [list] would only accept lists on its inlet.
It seems to me that these automatic conversions cause a lot of confusion and I can't see the benefit or necessity for them. Could anyone elaborate on why this automatic conversions of lists is needed? Does anyone rely on it? I have done a lot of general message processing and I've never relied on that behavior.
.hc
cheers ... tim
-- mailto:TimBlechmann@gmx.de ICQ: 96771783 http://www.mokabar.tk
latest mp3: kMW.mp3 http://mattin.org/mp3.html
latest cd: Goh Lee Kwang & Tim Blechmann: Drone http://www.geocities.com/gohleekwangtimblechmannduo/
After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space would say "I want to see the manager." William S. Burroughs
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
zen \ \ \[D[D[D[D