I was following IOhannes' prompt about t_int: "rule of thumb: never use it for anything but passing data to perform-routines."
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 10:22 PM, Miller Puckette <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm pretty confused about this. I believe it was "t_int" in 0.48-0, and > I see that your PR changesit from "t_int" to "int" - and I believe > it has to be "t_int" for back compatibility... > > cheers > M > > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 10:16:44PM +0100, Dan Wilcox wrote: >> I think I had already fixed this: >> https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/223 >> <https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/223> (?) Or am I missing >> something? >> >>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:40 PM, Miller Puckette <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I had one small ouch: I don't think I can compatibly change t_int to int >>> in m_pd.h (this is mentioned on another thread somewhere). I don't know how >>> to make clang pipe down about this short of casting almost every call to >>> atom_getint*() in the whole tree. Yuck... Maybe it's better just to tell >>> clang to be more permissive (if that's possible)? >> >> -------- >> Dan Wilcox >> @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> >> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> >> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/> >> >> >> -------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
