On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 19:01 -0500, marius schebella wrote: > ok, then it was a misunderstanding, I am also not saying that is has to > be in the core of pd. (is there an official policy that objectclasses > which can be created as abstractions should not be included as c > objectclass?...)
i don't know, but to me it seems, that miller follows such kind of a policy. you will hardly find any built-in classes, that could be easily substituted by abstractions made of other classes and if so, they are there because of historical reasons (is that correct?) > but now, when I think about this... > why is there now pd-featured abstraction list? yeah, why? i think that would be a nice thing to have. > counter would be an object that should be included in "standard > abstractions folder". i think the problem is to find a universal counter object. i usually find it easier to quickly hack a counter for the special task i need it for than figuring out if a certain existing counter class fits my needs (to realize afterwards, that it isn't exactly what i was looking for). > or is everybody supposed to create his own version of useful > abstractions over and over again? no, you create it once and you can reuse it over and over again. btw: it's exactly to goal of pdmtl-abs to collect abstractions, that could be of general use. if you miss a counter class with a certain behaviour, please feel free to add it (or ask someone to implement it for you). roman ___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list