On 14 Dec 2010, at 08:12, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > On 2010-12-14 05:58, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >> Pd doesn't really have classes like OOP (i.e. no inheritance), so I > > as a matter of fact Pd implements a simple OOP system in C (including > rudimentary inheritance). > >> think it can be confusing to use that term. > > so i think that we should use the term > >> People have been saying >> objects for a long time with Pd and Max. >> > > which doesn't make it any better. > people have been saying "objects" for a long time in OOP, and you could > use this very definition for Pd/Max like "objects" as well: it's the > little rectangle things in your Pd-patch. > > iirc, this has all been discussed to the end, and since then the term > "objectclass" has been pretty much established for what matju refers to > as "class" right now.
"objectclass" is a pleonasm and leads to: "an object is an instance of an objectclass", eugh! _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
