On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 09:46 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Roman Haefeli wrote:
i think, that the question, why a new object [pack] is named pack is not rhetoric at all and isn't answered yet. so lets go again: why is [pack] from zexy called [pack]?
because it is meant as a fully backwards-compatible replacement of [pack], with added features. since i have been repeating this for several times now, i would be interested in the precise part of the above sentence that is unclear to you.
i think, i understand that sentence, but still cannot see the goal of calling it the same. i mean, giving it the same name is of no use for your old (pre-zexy-[unpack]) patches, since they were not aware of the new features of zexy's [unpack], when they were created, thus they also would work with the pd's [unpack] today. on the other hand, for new patches, that potentionally profit from the added features of [unpack], it wouldn't have been any additional effort to write each time [zunpack] (or whatsoever) instead of [unpack]. so the only goal of it, that i can see is, that you deliberately want to confuse yourself, which i believe wasn't your reason to call it [unpack]. back to the orignal question....
roman
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de