Cyrille.Damez@laposte.net wrote:
On Monday 01 October 2007 15:36:02 IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
appreciating that you found a bug in [lister] (which has been around for quite a while and i do believe it was useful and used), i cannot follow your arguing: though shalt not use aliases for buggy objects though shalt not use 1-character names for buggy objects though shalt rename buggy objects to [buggy_<objectname>] though shalt not use buggy objects though shalt not write buggy objects
not much left to use then...
Did I write anything that could be interpreted as offensive ? If yes I'm sorry.
no no. i was just saying that your consequence from a buggy object was a bit too much for my taste.
I'm not blaming anybody for the (arguably small) issue at hand, we were just discussing the reasons why one would expect certain objects to have shortcuts or not. Of course "bugginess" can't be a criterion as nobody knows a priori whether if his code is 100% error-proof (and nobody can honestly guarantee to write bug-free code).
right, that is what i was trying to say.
However, in this particular case, since we know there are a couple issues with [lister]
how many issues do you have with lister. in all the years of its existance, i remember exactly 3 bugs filed at the sf tracker:
corrupts the output.
and then there is another "bug" which has not been filed to the tracker yet:
so we have 4 issues, and honestly all but the first ones are not "bugs" in a strict sense. which leaves us at only 1 issue (which has been fixed in the CVS)
and since I was told it could be deprecated in favor of [list append], my opinion is that maybe the shortcut should be assigned to the latter in order to prevent people unaware of pd's historical development to choose the former.
well, in theory this is correct. in practice there are several issues:
object has to provide the (bug-free) functionality of [l], in order to not break existing patches
[lister] (or [l]) _abstraction_ with built-in objects:
| | [route bang] | | | | | [t b a] | +----------+ | | | +--+ [list append ] |
of [lister] to the [list append] replacement.
pd-internals, because there is no way to pass a variable number of arguments to an abstraction. you would need my "$@" patch against Pd for this.
these are the reasons why there still is a [lister]/[l] object in zexy and why it is done as an external.
on the other side, a lot of objects in zexy are there only because they aren't there in Pd yet (for instance, zexy had a [tabread4] object long before Pd...) i would love it, if Pd's [list] object (which is an alias to [list append], would really behave in-line with the [float] and [symbol] objects (see above patch) i would love it, if this [list] object would have an alias [l].
fmg.asdr IOhannes