[PD-dev] [initbang]: any use?
IOhannes m zmoelnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Wed Aug 23 09:11:27 CEST 2006
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
> * "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
> * "free" in C just frees the memory
> * "free" in Ruby C interface is both a destructor and frees most of the
> * "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.
i think [freebang] might be a nice name.
from a technical side, [deletebang] might be better.
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.
More information about the Pd-dev