>> why do you think you are missing something? > I usually do that, cause I'm not a programmer [...]
> I also see this pattern here and there, so I'm > not coming up with this, would anyone have something > against using "."? You said above you are not a programmer above, so I'll thrown in a programming perspective in the hopes that it's useful to you: Your preference complicates the source code for no significant usability gain. The relationship between [foo_bar] and foo_bar_setup is easy to see, whereas the one between [foo.bar] and setup_fooOx2ebar is not. If the "." character were used in a library name because it represents a well-known mathematical operator that would be one thing. But using it for personal preference at the expense of code readability isn't a worthwhile tradeoff from the standpoint of maintainability. It's possible you saw the pattern in an abstraction library where this issue doesn't come up. Also-- I used an uppercase "o" instead of a zero just to drive the readability point home. Best, Jonathan > cheers _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
