moin Martin, moin list,
On 2006-12-17 21:46:50, Martin Peach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> appears
to have written:
Bryan Jurish wrote:
On 2006-12-17 03:09:19, Martin Peach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
appears to have written:
A string could be considered unused when its length is set to 0.
Memory would need to be dynamically allocated in small blocks. The
API should return "no method for string" if the external doesn't
implement strings.
... which wouldn't get us true strings in the mathematical sense of a
free monoid <Alphabet,concat()>, since the empty string is the
identity element for concat()...
Yes, I agree there should be no restriction on empty strings. I also
think there is no need to destroy strings except when the patcher is
closed, so it's not really an issue.
if by "destroy" you mean de-allocation of the string struct itself (i
assume you do; your suggestion looks a lot like a glib GString btw,
which is im(ns)ho a good general purpose c string struct), and if a
string therefore winds up being just something like a symbol with a
volatile value (i.e. doesn't get written to the symbol table), then i agree.
what i think we need to avoid with strings (i don't think anyone has
suggested otherwise, i'm just stating the obvious) is symbol-style
permanent allocation for every string *value*. string "variables"
could/should be handled like any other pd atom: the external which
creates them is responsible for (de-)allocation, which would wind up
doing what you suggest and freeing any allocated memory when the
responsible object is destroyed (provided the object doesn't leak
memory, but i think we can assume c programmers are used to keeping
track of such things -- ymmv).
in fact, this is how [any2string] handles things, in its ugly
list-of-floats way...
marmosets,
Bryan
--
Bryan Jurish "There is *always* one more bug."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology
_______________________________________________
PD-dev mailing list
PD-dev@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
