On 14 Dec 2010, at 04:58, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 20:25 -0800, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Tue, 12/14/10, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Subject: Re: [PD] libraries in Pd-extended 0.43 To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "PD List" pd-list@iem.at, "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hans@at.or.at Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 3:04 AM On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
As far as improving documentation, I'd say every
object in Pd-ext should be
documented clearly in a help patch that outlines:
I'd say every class in Pd-ext should be documented clearly in a help patch that outlines:
You're right. I'm an object-o-phile. But do you find "Related Objects" troubling-- should it be "Related Classes"?
Pd doesn't really have classes like OOP (i.e. no inheritance), so I think it can be confusing to use that term. People have been saying objects for a long time with Pd and Max.
The concept of classes doesn't have anything to do with inheritance, it's about separating the abstract representation of something (class), and a concrete instance of that thing (object).
The terminology is used liberally in the Pd html manual http://www.crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/Pd_documentation/x2.htm and I think it's perfectly clear and not confusing at all.
In fact it's more confusing to avoid the term class, since this then makes Pd inconsistent with other languages.
Jamie