Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
actually this example belongs to the only group of objects where i can see the use for a closebang.
It shouldn't be called "closebang" because in the case of abstractions the thing called "close" only closes the window, so it only hides the instance, not destroying it. If it destroyed the instance, it could be called:
- "delete" in C++ calls the destructor and frees the memory
- destructor in C++ never frees memory
- "delete" in DesireData GUI is both a destructor and frees the memory
- "free" in PureData C interface is both a destructor and frees the
memory
- "free" in C just frees the memory
- "free" in Ruby C interface is both a destructor and frees most of the
memory
- "finalize" in Ruby and Java is a destructor but never frees memory
right, the names could be subject to discussion: [initbang] is really a bad name, as it makes you think of initialization rather than creation. i liked [closebang] because of ... probably the sound.
closebang:: i think [freebang] might be a nice name. from a technical side, [deletebang] might be better.
initbang:: probably [createbang] as it bangs after creation. or [newbang] (esp. if the destructor-bang is called [deletebang])
changing the patch to better names is left as an exercise for the user.
mfg.asdr IOhannes