On Monday, November 21, 2011 3:02 PM, "Mathieu Bouchard" <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 2011-11-21 à 12:58:00, IOhannes m zmoelnig a écrit : > > while i'm all for "one objectclass per functionality", and for > > establishing a single idiom (at least, per "objectclass family") - and > > thus think i'm with hans also, i still don't see any point in > > "masquerading as a single class". > > what makes the name [list foo] any better than [listfoo]? > > It's a form of namespacing. > > Ask Hans what makes the name ::pdtk_canvas::pdtk_canvas_popup any better > than just pdtk_canvas_popup... I don't get it either, and on top of that, > I don't get the point of the the repetitive repetition of of pdtk_canvas > pdtk_canvas.
pdtk_canvas is the new namespace, and pdtk_canvas_popup is the legacy name. Remember, part of the mandate of the pd-gui rewrite was not changing the C code. Therefore not everything could be renamed. .hc > > objects with "proper" names - that don't involve "mummmers" - can still > > share the same help-patch (if needed). > > (What are you talking about ?) > > ______________________________________________________________________ > | Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
