On Apr 18, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:01:29PM +0200, pd-list-request@iem.at
wrote:Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:14:46 +0200 From: Frank Barknecht fbar@footils.org Subject: Re: [PD] feature request for [list]
Hallo, Chris McCormick hat gesagt: // Chris McCormick wrote:
So basically I'd like to see a [list length] and an [s2l].
You can do "list length" with a simple counter and "list split" already. It's called [list-len] in [list]-abs. However unfolding a list using [until] and [list split] is very slow. I did benchmarks comparing it to [drip] and it takes ages longer. As a "drip"
operation is used so often - Matju once compared it to the "for"-loop of other languages - it is important that "drip" is fast, and not only fast, but very fast. I'd much prefer to have a fast unfolding operation over getting "list length".Yes, good point.
And negative indices are just very convenient, and the object is already in.
I don't think that [s2l] should become part of [list]. To me it is a typical string operation, like Perl's split and
string.split() in Python.Agreed. If someone made patches against Miller's Pd and put it in SF patch tracker would these probably make it in?
Yes, I think it would. Plus if its a clean patch, then we can easily
include it in Pd-extended until its in Miller's Pd.
.hc
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
-
Eldridge Cleaver