On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:34 -0700, Kim Cascone wrote:
I fully agree with you. I find replacing built-in vanilla object classes a rather bad habit and quite confusing. I don't see a valid reason for doing that.
I don't see a valid reason for passing A_POINTER atoms around that aren't proper t_gpointer pointers, and I don't see a valid reason for [print] to say "consistency check failed" when it just doesn't know an atom type, and I don't see a valid reason for avoiding the addition of custom atom types in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.
http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2002-08/007854.html http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2007-06/008995.html http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2008-07/012058.html (and so on)
Since one needs to load 'gridflow' anyway to use GridfFlow, why not simply put a Gridflow specific print object when needed?
The goal is to replace [print]. If I just want a [print] but [print] can't be customised to work with the atom type I introduce, then the built-in [print] needs to be replaced. It should be as easy to understand as why we shouldn't need a [printfloat] to print floats, a [printsymbol] to print symbols, etc.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801