[PD-dev] [initbang]: any use?

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> 
>> actually this example belongs to the only group of objects where i can 
>> see the use for a closebang.
> 
> It shouldn't be called "closebang" because in the case of abstractions 
> the thing called "close" only closes the window, so it only hides the 
> instance, not destroying it. If it destroyed the instance, it could be 
> called:
> 
>  * "delete" in C++ calls the destructor and frees the memory
>  * destructor in C++ never frees memory
>  * "delete" in DesireData GUI is both a destructor and frees the memory
>  * "free"   in PureData C interface is both a destructor and frees the 
> memory
>  * "free" in C just frees the memory
>  * "free" in Ruby C interface is both a destructor and frees most of the 
> memory
>  * "finalize" in Ruby and Java is a destructor but never frees memory
> 


right, the names could be subject to discussion:
[initbang] is really a bad name, as it makes you think of initialization 
rather than creation.
i liked [closebang] because of ... probably the sound.

closebang::
i think [freebang] might be a nice name.
from a technical side, [deletebang] might be better.

initbang::
probably [createbang] as it bangs after creation.
or [newbang] (esp. if the destructor-bang is called [deletebang])

changing the patch to better names is left as an exercise for the user.

mfg.asdr
IOhannes