On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
They key difference would be that each stdlib would have a standardized
interface, and each objectclass would conform to that interface. For
example, there could be an 'io' standard lib. Everything in that lib
would respond to [open(, [close(, etc. in the same way, the first inlet
would behave similarly, and the first outlet would be the data in the
form of lists, and the second outlet would be status info in the form of
lists.
That's also called an "interface", a "protocol", a "contract", or an
"abstract class".
For example, if I have [comport], [tcpsocket] and [file] classes, all
three of which implement the io protocol, then any of those three can be
called "an io object", or "an object of the io class", and each of those
three's helpfiles can refer to the io protocol help file instead of
copy-pasting each other, and then you have help files about classes that
are not implementations and which you can't instantiate because they only
exist documentation-wise, and that's alright. That's a direction that I
advocate for PDDP.
This concept is independent from namespaces. It has to, to some extent,
because often a class will implement multiple protocols. Even in the io
department, you can split the io interface into "readable", "writable",
"seekable", etc.; then it's better to have the namespace go with a
category of classes that are related by their protocol relationships, but
don't necessarily all implement a same single protocol.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
_______________________________________________
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
