21 Nov
2011
21 Nov
'11
12:58 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2011-11-18 19:43, Miller Puckette wrote:
I'm with Hans -- e.g., 'list' where there's a whole slew of functionalities masquerading as a single class (and sharing a help file), but in which you only need one object for each type of use, e.g., "list nth".
while i'm all for "one objectclass per functionality", and for establishing a single idiom (at least, per "objectclass family") - and thus think i'm with hans also, i still don't see any point in "masquerading as a single class".
what makes the name [list foo] any better than [listfoo]?
objects with "proper" names - that don't involve "mummmers" - can still share the same help-patch (if needed).
mfgasdr IOhannes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk7KPMgACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvSmQQCgxxs7OYZFM7jBAz7TU0/77LUN
6dIAn1qZsIDCZb4Z2bq4bMHS3ZNa5kzC
=OXtX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----