On Nov 18, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > Le 2011-11-18 à 10:16:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit : > >> This is more like iemguts: properties of abstractions. Jonathan's proposal >> includes that, but also global things. IMHO, iemguts is the most Pd-ish >> because its a library of simple objects rather than a single absattr >> mega-object with attributes (Max/MSP style) or messages via send/receive. > > Is the goal to make pd easier to use for complex problems, or is the goal to > create lots of tiny classes for the sake of ideology ?
> I don't mind small classes and I do have problems with certain huge classes > being huge (in Max) and bundling lots of things that they could outsource, > but [absattr-sub] doesn't look like one. Obviously, there are objects that are too simple just as there are objects that are too complex. One thing that I think is a valuable goal is making objects that do their thing only using the core atom types as input: bang, float, symbol, list (rather than [get blah( etc.) That's not always possible, like with [textfile], [comport], [hid], etc.. So we can take these concepts, like canvas properties and say: how can I do everything around canvas properties using only bang, float, symbol, list. Its easy when its divided in the right way. Take canvas visibility. If this is its own [canvasvisible] object, then [bang( means get the value and [float 1( means set the value. Then on the output we receive a float representing the visibility. > Do you also think that [expr] should be avoided, for the sake of making > simple objects ? [expr] is a complex thing with complex syntax. I am fine with expr since I can also use [*] [+] [-] [/], etc. .hc ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity. - Bill Moyers _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
