I don't know the details, but I believe it was just choosing an unused number to represent the type. Then also not using a keyword. Ultimately, there could be something like /etc/services where we can register these numbers. Or maybe they could just be included in the Pd headers.
http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2008-04/011257.html
.hc
On May 8, 2008, at 10:33 PM, Martin Peach wrote:
Could someone point me to IOhannes' technique? If it makes sense I'll give it a go during the next week.
Martin
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@eds.org To: pd-dev List pd-dev@iem.at Subject: [PD-dev] removing string types from pd-extended release Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 20:44:09 +0200
Hey,
We talked about this in the recent past. Could someone who knows the details remove the declarations of the string type from branches/pd- extended/0.40? Or shall I just remove the whole patch? I want to include string support, but using the technique that IOhannes laid out, which should be possible without patching Pd (AFAIK).
.hc
Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. - David Zicarelli
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
All information should be free. - the hacker ethic