22 messages in at.iem.pd-devRe: [PD-dev] loaderHEX bug report| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 21, 2005 10:16 pm | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 22, 2005 1:54 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 22, 2005 7:31 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 22, 2005 7:42 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 22, 2005 8:22 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 22, 2005 8:38 am | |
| günter geiger | Nov 22, 2005 9:03 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 22, 2005 9:29 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 22, 2005 10:10 pm | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 23, 2005 2:09 am | |
| Thomas Grill | Nov 23, 2005 3:31 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 23, 2005 4:22 am | |
| Thomas Grill | Nov 23, 2005 4:25 am | |
| geiger | Nov 23, 2005 7:38 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 23, 2005 7:46 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 23, 2005 8:41 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 23, 2005 8:50 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 23, 2005 8:51 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 23, 2005 8:53 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 23, 2005 2:34 pm | |
| geiger | Nov 24, 2005 2:09 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 30, 2005 9:44 am |
| Subject: | Re: [PD-dev] loaderHEX bug report | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Thomas Grill (gr...@grrrr.org) | |
| Date: | Nov 23, 2005 4:25:10 am | |
| List: | at.iem.pd-dev | |
IOhannes m zmoelnig schrieb:
Thomas Grill wrote:
using my loader patch the naming of the loader function would be irrelevant since it's just including in a chain of loader functions, starting with the classic (now called sys_loader_lib_internal) PD loader.
so this basically means, we could write an external that provides the character escaping loader (and would not have to patch pd-core)
exactly
Concerning the setup function naming - how about xyz_altsetup ? it's true that it should be distinguished from the old naming, but should not have a prefix that excludes some object names.
again the problem with this is, that the current escaping does (for "readability" replace "invalid" characters by "0x??" where "??" is the hex-value of the character. starting a function-name with numbers is generally a bad idea, if you want a compiler to read it. so that's why we thought of a prefix that guarantees a valid indentifier. prefixing "setup_" (which i still think is nice ,-)) would solve both the problem with valid id's and establish a distinct naming scheme (which, as hans pointed out, could also be seen as a problem)
oh right.... i don't really care about the exact naming scheme
Thomas
-- Thomas Grill http://grrrr.org