On Sep 13, 2007, at 9:32 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
>
>> This is a "me too"-message from me: For the same reasons as Thomas
>> I'd
>> prefer to stick with "object". While "class" is more correct, I think
>> the difference is somet
>> The term "class" has not really been used in Pd land much at all.
>> The term "object" has been used for both classes and instances
> Just to clarify. Abstractions are classes too? Such that an instance
> of an abstraction is called an object?
Well...everything in PD is an abject if it is save
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Steffen wrote:
On 13/09/2007, at 5.11, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
The term "class" has not really been used in Pd land much at all.
The term "object" has been used for both classes and instances
Just to clarify. Abstractions are classes too? Such that an instance
of an a
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Chris McCormick wrote:
For example if someone is explaining about what externals are. That is a
good and every-day intuitive use of the word "class" for normal people
as well as being acceptable to us abnormal computer scientists (as Matju
pointed out already).
I wouldn'
Hallo,
Mathieu Bouchard hat gesagt: // Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Max Neupert wrote:
>
> >as much as i like matjus cat example and i can't help thinking of his
> >white fat shy beast roaming around his computers
>
> If you actually held that cat in your hands you'd know that
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Max Neupert wrote:
as much as i like matjus cat example and i can't help thinking of his
white fat shy beast roaming around his computers
If you actually held that cat in your hands you'd know that the cat is not
fat. Most of her volume is hair and air between the hair. S
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:
We're talking about what term to use in pdpedia for the descriptions of
the available building blocks for patches, mainly externals and
abstractions. When building patches, what users (scientists and artists)
deal with, are objects. The only thing yo
as much as i like matjus cat example and i can't help thinking of his
white fat shy beast roaming around his computers i have to “third”
franks point.
Am 13.09.2007 um 10:29 schrieb Thomas Grill:
> Hi Frank,
> it's my turn now to absolutely second what you said.
>
> gr~~~
>
> Am 13.09.2007 u
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:
This is a "me too"-message from me: For the same reasons as Thomas I'd
prefer to stick with "object". While "class" is more correct, I think
the difference is something only computer scientists are interested in
Until they use abstractions with send
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
apart from that, i do not see a necessity to use either of these terms.
why can't we just use "/bang" for the class (or however you want to call
it).
Because if classes have that kind of precedence, and you have a page on a
certain concept whic
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Thomas Grill wrote:
Hmmm, i can follow your reasing, but i guess noone would say "class of
cats" when he/she means cats in general. That would be "objects" for pd
then, not "class".
They wouldn't think of a cat as an object and they wouldn't say a "cat
object" either, so
Hi Marius,
what i wrote in the last mail is my personal usage of notions up till
now (because i was asked). I don't think that it's the way to go.
The meta term for me is "object", as said before.
gr~~~
Am 13.09.2007 um 16:51 schrieb marius schebella:
> Thomas Grill wrote:
>> For abstractions
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:32:39PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
>
> > This is a "me too"-message from me: For the same reasons as Thomas I'd
> > prefer to stick with "object". While "class" is more correct, I think
> > the differenc
Thomas Grill wrote:
> For abstractions, the word is "abstraction". An abstraction in turn
> contains objects that may be of type "message", "sub patch",
> "abstraction" or "external/binary object".
> I always use "external object" to mean an object that can't be opened as
> a patch.
for pdpedi
Am 13.09.2007 um 09:06 schrieb Mathieu Bouchard:
>
> It's a concept that they already know since they are very little.
> Many nouns refer to something that there can be many instances of
> and of which the noun acts as a class. Thus saying "the cat" refers
> to an individual, "the cats" refe
Hi Frank,
it's my turn now to absolutely second what you said.
gr~~~
Am 13.09.2007 um 15:32 schrieb Frank Barknecht:
> Hallo,
> Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
>
>> This is a "me too"-message from me: For the same reasons as Thomas
>> I'd
>> prefer to stick with "object".
Hallo,
Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
> This is a "me too"-message from me: For the same reasons as Thomas I'd
> prefer to stick with "object". While "class" is more correct, I think
> the difference is something only computer scientists are interested
> in and Pd has a trad
Hallo,
Thomas Grill hat gesagt: // Thomas Grill wrote:
> my vote is for object, although it's technically incorrect.
> Thinking of my course next semester, i guess i would have a hard time
> explaining the class/object difference to the students, most of who
> have no programming experience at
marius schebella wrote:
> what you say make sense, it is just not true for Pd. in object oriented
> programming (and maybe other programming too) the instantiation of a
> "class" is called object. but referring to the miller's pd documentation
> (html) there are no classes, and he calls classes
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Thomas Grill wrote:
my vote is for object, although it's technically incorrect. Thinking of
my course next semester, i guess i would have a hard time explaining the
class/object difference to the students, most of who have no programming
experience at all.
It's a concept
On 13/09/2007, at 5.11, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> The term "class" has not really been used in Pd land much at all.
> The term "object" has been used for both classes and instances
Just to clarify. Abstractions are classes too? Such that an instance
of and abstraction is called an object
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, marius schebella wrote:
what you say make sense, it is just not true for Pd. in object oriented
programming (and maybe other programming too) the instantiation of a
"class" is called object. but referring to the miller's pd documentation
(html) there are no classes, and he c
There is a ton of documentation out there, and there are varying
standards about how things are described and named. We can't heed
them all, so we should come up with something that is clean and concise.
The term "class" has not really been used in Pd land much at all.
The term "object" h
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Roman Haefeli wrote:
how about naming the 'class' 'objectclass' instead?
although you are probably right, marius, that most of the pd users do
not know the term 'class', they'd probably understand 'objectclass'.
I often write "object class" in the context of pd precisely b
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, hard off wrote:
it took me 5 months to figure out the difference between objects, externals,
and abstractionsgod only knows how much longer it would have taken if
i'd had to deal with 'classes' as well. i probably would have given up.
'object' has always been used (eve
Class is what pd calls objects internally.
For example here is the setup routine for the unpackOSC object:
void unpackOSC_setup(void)
{
unpackOSC_class = class_new(gensym("unpackOSC"),
(t_newmethod)unpackOSC_new, (t_method)unpackOSC_free,
sizeof(t_unpackOSC), 0, 0);
class_a
marius schebella wrote:
> what you say make sense, it is just not true for Pd.
Look at m_pd.h, you will find "class" written a lot. In fact the most
important function for writing externals is called "class_new".
I vote for removing the confusion that exists currently, by using the
word "clas
Hey all,
my vote is for object, although it's technically incorrect.
Thinking of my course next semester, i guess i would have a hard time
explaining the class/object difference to the students, most of who
have no programming experience at all.
I tend to think that for pd this differentiation
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 17:49 -0400, marius schebella wrote:
> h...
> hm...
> will you be the one to ask miller to change his documentation?
> marius.
good point.
now, i really don't know what to say
roman
> Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 17:22 -0400, marius sche
h...
hm...
will you be the one to ask miller to change his documentation?
marius.
Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 17:22 -0400, marius schebella wrote:
>> what you say make sense, it is just not true for Pd. in object oriented
>> programming (and maybe other programming too) t
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 17:22 -0400, marius schebella wrote:
> what you say make sense, it is just not true for Pd. in object oriented
> programming (and maybe other programming too) the instantiation of a
> "class" is called object. but referring to the miller's pd documentation
> (html) there ar
what you say make sense, it is just not true for Pd. in object oriented
programming (and maybe other programming too) the instantiation of a
"class" is called object. but referring to the miller's pd documentation
(html) there are no classes, and he calls classes "objects".
'"reference" patches,
On 12/09/2007, at 22.41, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 22:13 +0200, Steffen wrote:
>> On 12/09/2007, at 21.47, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>>
>>> at least in my opinion the differentiation between a [dac~] and
>>> the 'dac~' in general is quite important.
>>
>> I would love some insight o
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 22:13 +0200, Steffen wrote:
> On 12/09/2007, at 21.47, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>
> > at least in my opinion the differentiation between a [dac~] and
> > the 'dac~' in general is quite important.
>
> I would love some insight on that. If you or anyone would care to
> elaborate?
On 12/09/2007, at 21.47, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> at least in my opinion the differentiation between a [dac~] and
> the 'dac~' in general is quite important.
I would love some insight on that. If you or anyone would care to
elaborate?
___
PD-list@iem.at
how about naming the 'class' 'objectclass' instead?
although you are probably right, marius, that most of the pd users do
not know the term 'class', they'd probably understand 'objectclass'.
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 15:07 -0400, marius schebella wrote:
> as hans already knew, I disagree. I have not
it took me 5 months to figure out the difference between objects, externals,
and abstractionsgod only knows how much longer it would have taken if
i'd had to deal with 'classes' as well. i probably would have given up.
'object' has always been used (even if it is sometimes incorrectly
used).
as hans already knew, I disagree. I have not heard the term class
before. I think the term class is really not in use by pd users.
what you (hans) call a class is called an object by everybody else...
[class] <-- that is not a class, it is an object.
[message( <-- and that is a message.
when we a
Marius and I are sitting here arguing over whether we should use the
term "class" or "object" in the pdpedia as the standard term for
differentiation, e.g. bang (class) vs. bang (selector).
I think the current usage of the term "object" in Pd has two
meanings: an instance of a class, and th
39 matches
Mail list logo
