On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 10:00 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> Roman Haefeli wrote:
> >
> > i think, that the question, why a new object [pack] is named pack is not
> > rhetoric at all and isn't answered yet. so lets go again: why is [pack]
> > from zexy called [pack]?
>
> apart from the specifics of [pack]:
> if a language allows the overriding of built-in methods, then i do not
> see why a social codex (which is what you are asking for, right?) should
> forbid it.
> especially, if a language introduces ways to override built-in methods
> after years of existance, it actually encourages the overriding of
> built-in methods.
yo.. your point is perfectly valid. call me stubborn, but i still don't
see the goal of:
a) allowing to override internals
b) actually using that feature
but you are right: there is no reason, that should discourage you from
using the new feature.
> i guess miller has spent countless of sleepless hours thinking and
> rethinking how to do this best, so we probably should adapt to it.
whatever conclusion miller came to, i didn't get it.
roman
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
