On Feb 4, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I think we can keep both [any_argument] and [list_argument] so that
you can choose the behavior. Also its very easily and logically
straightforward to do this if you want:[any_argument] | [route float] [symbol]
And this will work even with very old versions of Pd and would be
compatible with [list_argument].This wouldn't work with pointers. This also wouldn't work if Pd's set
of basic atomtypes (float symbol pointer) gets extended to more types in
the future.In my opinion, new is not always better. The double [route] thing
works fine, and it is a clearly established method. [list] is still quite new, so for things like [*_arguments], I think its wise to stick to tried-and-true methods whenever possible.tried-and-true is ok if the new [list] thingy doesn't fill a gap in Pd. But it does fill a big gap, such that anything designed for >=0.39
which avoids using [list] is just being retro. It's not like [list] is some
kind of luxury, isn't it?
Ok, I'm convinced on that point, [list_argument] should use list. I
support backwards compatibility only if it doesn't affect forward
compatibility. My concern is that since [list] is new an untested, and
something of a hack (i.e. alist_class) that is might have to change
behavior at some point in the future. It doesn't feel stable to me
yet.
But I still think that [any_argument] that outputs a non-symbol is
useful too. How about this: [list_argument] becomes [any_argument],
since its symbol output matches [symbol_argument], then the non-list
[any_argument] is [route_argument] or something like that.
.hc
There is no way to peace, peace is the way.
-A.J. Muste