On Jul 16, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
This leads to the question: should tooltip messages be per-instance
or per-class? It could easily just be a field with a standard name
in each object's struct, then it would be a simple per-class
implementation. Having an 'assist' method means that the external
writer can decide whether the string is per-class or per-instance.
Yes... whichever is appropriate. But the default assist-method
should be designed so that in most cases, externals don't need to
have a custom assist-method.
I don't see a need to extend any structs, Pd just needs to call an
object's assist method whenever the mouse is hovering over one of
its inlet/outlets,
A default assist-method needs to be storing data somewhere, and it
cannot automatically pickup inlet names from anywhere in an
external's source code. It has to be stored in some data-
structures... For example, in both t_class and t_inlet (for nonproxy
inlets).
This is an important point that Jonathan brings up: if we add an
'assist' method, that could mess up anything that ever sent a
message that started with 'assist'.
Then just do it like it is for savefn and propertiesfn. You see, it
doesn't have to be something that goes through class_addmethod. The
'assist' symbol issue is not an argument against defining an assist-
method because it could be a field named assistfn directly in t_class.
If you care about getting it into Vanilla, then Miller said he didn't
like modifying t_class. But I suppose someone could lobby him to
change his mind.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to computers should be unlimited and total. - the hacker ethic
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
