hmmmm... hmmmmm... 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) 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, one for each kind of object in Pd'. so even if there is the technical differentiation between that not instantiated thing, usually called "class" and the instance of it, called "object", that naming convention is not true for Pd. both, the "class" and the instance are known as "object". marius.
i don't know what to say, you are so right..... :-)
it's true that - regarding pd - i didn't find the term class anywhere. nevertheless, i personally wouldn't be against the introduction of the term 'class' at all, since it describes what it is anyway. no matter what convention is currently used, when we are talking about 'dac~' we are talking about the class 'dac~', even if the convention says, that we should call it 'object'. i vote for turning the facts into conventions rather than sticking with conventions, which are wrong.
although i absolutely see your point: one vote -> class (or objectclass)
roman
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de