hi Thomas,
Thomas Grill wrote: ...
I realized in my own work that it's very hard to express complex stuff as PD graphs, and also VASP has the problem of needing to lock arrays while working on them, which still isn't really implemented in PD (it is in the devel branch, but the future of this isn't clear either). The question is now whether i abandon the current PD object implementation of VASP and focus on the Python one, or think about a side-by-side solution of both systems, probably reducing the functionality of the current VASP implementation a bit. There's still
have you been thinking about replacing vasp with "pyobj" (and possibly "pyarr") python externals, which would allow passing references to python objects inside pd messages?
This means wrapping PyObject* and PyArrayObject* inside the t_atom structure. It is generally possible, although, currently, not very elegant, and not 100% robust. In the "plustot" experiment, I found out, that until things change on the t_atom scene, the type best suited for extending is t_symbol. I have faked it into becoming a reference-counted Tcl_Obj wrapper, which is fool-proof in most cases, but may fail, of course, and crash Pd, if someone renames an array to such a faked symbol, etc.
Perhaps, with some discussion and lobbying, we would have an appropriate Pd atom type some day...
Krzysztof