(hmm, this message is a bit old, but it didn't seem to get sent...)

On Jul 21, 2005, at 4:02 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

...

[int] isn't an atom type either, and it behaves the same as [f], [symbol], and [pointer]. I think that the storage type should be consistent and need not only apply to atoms. [anything] would also be handy.

Hey, btw, [anything] could be exactly like list except that it would treat the selector as part of the list it is processing. What do you think of this?

That would be a handy object, though I am not sure that it should called [anything]. I have to look at how other objects like [trigger] and [route] handle "anything". It should be consistent with the other key objects.

Btw, one thing that would be different between [list],[anything] vs the four other, is that you can't put initial object content of the former in the constructor: you can't write [list 1 2 3] to mean [list]<-"1 2 3"<-[loadbang] because [list] already reserves $1 for another purpose.

I assume you mean Miller's proposed [list]. If Miller's proposed functionality was split into individual objects, and [list] made into a storage object, then [list 1 2 3] would work. That makes the most sense to me.

.hc

________________________________________________________________________ ____

As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.

- Benjamin Franklin