--- On Wed, 8/12/09, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca
wrote:
Actually, "selector" would be the most sensible
column name
for the column that lists "the accepted
messages"...
It would, but there currently aren't column names in
the pddp template.
Are you looking at a different template than the one
for [float] in
pd-ext?
I'm not looking at a template, why?
Because I'm using the pddp template to revise the help patches. I don't see a simple way to add column headings to the templates. Were you suggesting adding column headings, or something else?
Hmm...I don't think these more general terms require
definitions, because they are superficially describing what one types to produce the desired behavior.
I don't think that it's a good idea to directly connect "what you type" with "what you get", except in examples. The theory should connect "what you type" with an internal representation, and connect the internal representation with "what you get", or any other number of intermediate steps, whatever is needed to make people distinguish between "a symbol" and "the spelling out of a symbol by a user" and "the printing out of the symbol by pd" and other things.
It's more obvious (and more critical) if you think of the float situation.
I don't think I understand your point. A float is referred to as a "float" in the help patches. The patches don't refer to a "float message," or "float selector." So I don't see a problem with how float is handled in the current docs.
So I wouldn't connect "what you type" with "what you get" in the case of float, but I don't see the problem of doing this with "the set message."
There's an implicit step when the term "message"
is used (i.e., typing something in a message box and sending it to the object). But if you look at the Max docs where they say, "the word 'set' followed by a number", there's not even that.
And so... how are the Max docs related to how Pd should be documented?...
I thought I could leave it unwritten: But if you look at the Max docs where they say, "the word 'set' followed by a number", there's not even that. Yet the wording is clear, succinct, and unambiguous.
-Jonathan