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.
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
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
