hmmmm... hmmmmm... will you be the one to ask miller to change his documentation? marius.
Roman Haefeli wrote: > On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 17:22 -0400, marius schebella wrote: >> what you say make sense, it is just not true for Pd. in object oriented >> programming (and maybe other programming too) the instantiation of a >> "class" is called object. but referring to the miller's pd documentation >> (html) there are no classes, and he calls classes "objects". >> '"reference" patches, one for each kind of object in Pd'. >> so even if there is the technical differentiation between that not >> instantiated thing, usually called "class" and the instance of it, >> called "object", that naming convention is not true for Pd. >> both, the "class" and the instance are known as "object". >> marius. > > i don't know what to say, you are so right..... :-) > > it's true that - regarding pd - i didn't find the term class anywhere. > nevertheless, i personally wouldn't be against the introduction of the > term 'class' at all, since it describes what it is anyway. no matter > what convention is currently used, when we are talking about 'dac~' we > are talking about the class 'dac~', even if the convention says, that we > should call it 'object'. i vote for turning the facts into conventions > rather than sticking with conventions, which are wrong. > > although i absolutely see your point: > one vote -> class (or objectclass) > > roman > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de > > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
