On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Andrew Faraday wrote:
You might want to have a look at Jamie Bullock's abstraction based
solution(which also went out on this list). Which was quite eloquent, if
a little limiting at first. It's a little way back from the dream of
dropping lines of OO code into pd but it's the kind of thing, when I
find a syntax I like for this, could be useful to streamline some of my
patching.
I think that you are confusing OO concepts with something else. Just
because you use Ruby doesn't mean you use the OO features of it (in a way
that really distinguishes it from non-OO).
Base OO concepts are Ruby's classes, Ruby's modules, Pd's abstractions,
Ruby's self, Pd's $0, etc.
I use the words "OO" and "OOP" not implying some kind of wholly-written
programme in imperative fashion. I think that this is most appropriate
than saying OOP is necessarily built-upon the concepts of "structured
programming", because the latter ignores all the languages that don't fit
with plain "structured programming" while inspiring themselves a lot from
OOP ideas. If you care about language categorisation and comparison, you
do use the word "OOP" in a more generic way.
volume = .05,
The .05 syntax is a syntax error since Ruby 1.7 (many years ago).
_______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
