For me external is different from abstraction.
For what I understand there's a need for a joint concept, one that says "this visual object box is <<something>>".

Is that what you call class Mathieu?

best,
Pedro
p.s.: this kinda answers another thread, where I posted that table of concepts "mental exercise" (for me).

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Alexandre Porres <porres@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't say they strictly are, but that they can be (as with list-abs).

alex

2011/2/16 Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca>

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Alexandre Porres wrote:

> Btw-- the manual makes a distinction between> "abstractions" and "externs".
 
But it shouldn't, right? I mean, it's not real in practice, for abstractions can be externals...

Which definitions are you using ?

I've never seen « abstractions are externals » nor anything that would imply it.

I tried introducing the word « class » in users' vocabulary, to include both abstraction definitions and external definitions under a same word, and using the word « object » to mean instances of either, but there is still some resistance to using industry-standard vocabulary instead of whatever the MAX manuals coughed up, for example.

It would be good if you stated the definitions you use. It'd help me understand how « abstractions are externals » can be a true statement.

 _______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC


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




--
Pedro Lopes (MSc)
contact: pedro.lopes@ist.utl.pt
website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes / http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ | http://twitter.com/plopesresearch