On Nov 20, 2007, at 3:21 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Nov 20, 2007, at 12:16 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Is there any particular reason why [print] does not accept
float arguments? I think I want to add them.probably for a similar reason like why [send] does not accept
float arguments?(this is of course not true; [send] requires "binding" to a
label, and numbers (A_FLOAT) do not provide a mechanism to do
so, whereas symbols do)I don't understand your point. Basically what I am asking is,
would anyone object to adding the ability to handle float args to
[print]?which point? i just tried to give an explanation why things are as they are. not an excuse. and i also mentioned that my explanation is most likely wrong as it
draws parallels where there really are none.i principally don't object to [print] accepting number arguments,
rather i'd favour it. (but don't want yet another patch that breaks compatibility with pd- vanilla; so it's just a matter whether miller has some objections -
after all, why does it not accept floats in the first place?)
Now that I look at it, I think it would make sense to allow multiple
atoms in the [print] box as well, converting to text using
binbuf_gettext(). Then it seems that having a symbol x->x_sym
doesn't work as well, and instead it should be char x->x_text
[MAXPDSTRING];
.hc
You can't steal a gift. Bird gave the world his music, and if you can
hear it, you can have it. - Dizzy Gillespie