Maybe I'm missing the point here, but isn't Haskell a compiled (not interpreted) language? We can add any compiled function, wrapped in a C-written external, just so long as we have the symbols for the function from the binary. *OR* we can write an external in some funky language, so long as we can reference the functions from m_pd.h correctly in that language. I tried to put a Fortran function into an external, once compiled. All I had to do was "grep" for the symbols exactly as they appeared in the binary, and get the variables of the function declaration right. Is this similar? Have I missed the point entirely? Chuck
On 1/6/07, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Thomas Grill wrote:
Am 07.01.2007 um 01:20 schrieb Mathieu Bouchard:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
The loader is the final piece in the puzzle that was preventing people from writing native objects in other languages.
Now it doesn't look like you are just being innocently mistaken, it looks like a deliberate lie.
Is everything ok with you?
What, you aren't going to say that the absence of the new loader feature has ever prevented you from coding your Python externals ?
Is everything ok with you?
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list