On Apr 8, 2006, at 12:12 AM, carmen wrote:
At the level of patching, inheritance can be partially replaced by deeply nested abstractions and a lot of [route]s, though those who'd like to implement mixins are screwed. How would you emulate virtual inheritance with abstractions and [route] ?
inside a patch needing a few additional methods (assuming it has a single inlet), i'd just wire in any number of abstractions in series. inside those abstractions would be a route, for the methods which the mixin abstractions implement.. i havent actually tried this. im fairly sure i would consider my OSC/message recording things a mixin as well, simply create one in a subpatch, and you have a local send/recieve variable which can forward arbitrary messages to the global 'recording agent'..similar to AOP logging..
in any case there are definitely OO concepts at play, in a world where structs-within-structs or creative $0 tricks are as close as one can currently go.
Hans, if youre stilll reading, how does 'meta' sound? i do like the idea of collecting all these dynamic patching things in one place..
Part of PDDP is standard meta information, so a "meta" lib should probably handle that stuff. I still think that "object" in the context of Pd makes good sense since it's a collection of objects used for writing objects.
(I deliberatly say "object" and not "class", since "class" implies a lot of OOP concepts which are not in Pd, like subclass/superclass, class tree/hierarchy, inheritance, etc.).
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity." -John Gilmore