----- Original Message -----
> From: IOhannes zmölnig <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 9:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] from t_symbol to t_class
>
> On 01/12/2013 12:04 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
>>>>> In C would I just make a struct with fields of t_symbol,
>>>>>
>>>>> t_class, and a pointer to link to the next one?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, a linked list would work fine, probably not as efficient as
> the c++ hash structure (but lots easier to maintain). One nit-to-pick: Use
> a
> t_class pointer, which is a t_pd.
>>
>>
>> Hm... since the code to add new classes to the list will probably
>> end up looking exactly like the code to add symbols to the
>> symbol table, what if I just bloat the _symbol struct by adding
>> a t_class *s_class? Would that affect performance?
>
> it would break binary compatibility.
>
> there's no good reason to add hash-like lookups to t_symbol (your only
> reason is convenience).
and avoiding code duplication.
> true, there's an s_thing there, but that's mainly for performance
> reasons (looking up symbol->class mappings is usually outside a
> performance critical path)(and having s_thing in t_symbol is very ugly)
>
>
>>
>> Then searching for an existing class would be easy-- just do
>> a gensym and check if its s_class exists.
>>
>
> but checking whether a class exists, is as simple as calling zgetfn on
> pd_objectmaker.
> i think this is _quite_ easy.
Well yes. I meant searching for a class and _returning_ a class pointer.
So without adding/revising code inside class_new, is creating an instance
the only way to get access to the class attributes?
-Jonathan
>
>
> fgmasdr
> IOhannes
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
