I was following IOhannes' prompt about t_int: "rule of thumb: never use it for anything but passing data to perform-routines."
On Dec 2, 2017, at 10:22 PM, Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu wrote:
I'm pretty confused about this. I believe it was "t_int" in 0.48-0, and I see that your PR changesit from "t_int" to "int" - and I believe it has to be "t_int" for back compatibility...
cheers M
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 10:16:44PM +0100, Dan Wilcox wrote:
I think I had already fixed this: https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/223 https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/223 (?) Or am I missing something?
On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:40 PM, Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu wrote:
I had one small ouch: I don't think I can compatibly change t_int to int in m_pd.h (this is mentioned on another thread somewhere). I don't know how to make clang pipe down about this short of casting almost every call to atom_getint*() in the whole tree. Yuck... Maybe it's better just to tell clang to be more permissive (if that's possible)?
Dan Wilcox @danomatika http://twitter.com/danomatika danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/
-------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika http://twitter.com/danomatika danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/