I see.

I was thinking of externals as anything that can be loaded as an object or library - like any non native/pd vanilla object - at startup.

Therefore, my concept of externals is broad, and can include abstractions if their path is listed on Pd preferences. 

I don't use vanilla, so I don't know if the [sin~] object or list-abs is loaded there. But then, what matters is that I am actually wrong to conceive it this way, and need to be corrected, right?

The thing is that I am translation my long Pd Tutorial to english, and I make this assumption there somewhere. One of my intent to translate to english is to see if you guys find inconsistent information there too.

Thanks a lot
Alex



2011/2/16 Miller Puckette <msp@ucsd.edu>
I think the term 'external' was coined by David Zicarelli (in the context
of the M program, before Max) to mean an external code segment.  I've always
used it to mean a calss defined in a dynamically linked object module
(presumably written in C).

I use the word 'abstractions' to refer to patches invoked by name in
object boxes.  So for me at least, the two are different animals.

cheers
Miller

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 04:42:26AM +0000, Pedro Lopes wrote:
> 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

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