[chuck-dev] 1.2 aproaching? and building on FreeBSD

Ge Wang gewang at CS.Princeton.EDU
Fri Apr 22 02:11:30 EDT 2005


> Sounds cool ...   Would "foo => bar; baz +=> bar;" mean the same thing
> as "foo + baz => bar;" then?

close: "baz +=> bar;" is the same as "bar + baz => bar".

> Is there any example code (or even documentation) for this?

Not really.  (Uh, what's documentation again?)  There are some test
cases - mostly for unit testing that doesn't do much else.  "cvs update 
-d"
should get the "v2/test" and the 100+ test code segments.  Phil (mostly)
and I made these to "rigorously" test the language.  However, since unit
generators are still being re-imported, no sound can be synthesized yet
(boo).

Also, not all the grammar is finalized yet in these files, and we as a
group/community will continue to evolve the language.

Documentation - the good news is that Adam Tindale and others has
been working hard to put together bona-fide docs for ChucK.  The bad
news, well there is no bad news really, for once.

>  GW> The import system is the bottle neck right now.  Further hacking
>  GW> depends on this.  Once it's done, then C/C++ code can be imported
>  GW> less stupidly than before, and the portal to massive hacking will
>  GW> be opened (yikes).
>
> Huh?  Import from what to where?

C/C++ to ChucK.  classes written in ChucK can instantiate imported 
objects,
and even extend them.

>  GW> 
> #------------------------------------------------------------------
>  GW> # by default, ChucK uses a pre-configured libsndfile...
>  GW> # uncomment the next 3 lines to use libsndfile on your system
>  GW> 
> #------------------------------------------------------------------
>  GW> #FLAGS+= -D__CK_SNDFILE_NATIVE__
>  GW> #LIBS+= -lsndfile
>  GW> #SF_OBJ=
>
> Oups, sorry I didn't notice that!

Um, it might have been more helpful if we actually documented this
somewhere other than the makefile itself...  we are at fault.

> Thats great!   And sorry to be a bother with just loads of questions.

Good questions and of course no bother at all.  This is chuck-dev, 
after all!

Best,
Ge!



More information about the chuck-dev mailing list