On 14 Dec 2010, at 04:58, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 20:25 -0800, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: >> >> --- On Tue, 12/14/10, Mathieu Bouchard <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> From: Mathieu Bouchard <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [PD] libraries in Pd-extended 0.43 >>> To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <[email protected]> >>> Cc: "PD List" <[email protected]>, "Hans-Christoph Steiner" <[email protected]> >>> Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 3:04 AM >>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Jonathan Wilkes >>> wrote: >>> >>>> As far as improving documentation, I'd say every >>> object in Pd-ext should be >>>> documented clearly in a help patch that outlines: >>> >>> I'd say every class in Pd-ext should be >>> documented clearly in a help patch that outlines: >> >> You're right. I'm an object-o-phile. But do you find "Related >> Objects" troubling-- should it be "Related Classes"? > > Pd doesn't really have classes like OOP (i.e. no inheritance), so I > think it can be confusing to use that term. People have been saying > objects for a long time with Pd and Max. The concept of classes doesn't have anything to do with inheritance, it's about separating the abstract representation of something (class), and a concrete instance of that thing (object). The terminology is used liberally in the Pd html manual http://www.crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/Pd_documentation/x2.htm and I think it's perfectly clear and not confusing at all. In fact it's more confusing to avoid the term class, since this then makes Pd inconsistent with other languages. Jamie _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
