[PD-dev] [once] default closed...

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Sep 16, 2006, at 6:38 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:

> Hallo,
> Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>> Arg... another example of the limitations of email, its so hard to
>> communicate anything where nuance is essential.  This discussion
>> would take 10 minutes in person and no one would be annoyed.
>
> Ah, yes, that's so very true... ;)
>
>> - I do not care about strict adherence to backwards compatibility
>> - I do care about finding broad standards that make sense in the  
>> overall
>> - I did not know that [once] already exists elsewhere outside of  
>> purepd
>
> A name - of an object or a funicton - always carries some meaning  
> of its
> own, which should be related to its behaviour.  That is my main point
> against having [once] closed as default: A closed [once] to me more
> seems like a "[never]".  Viewing it from this point was what made me
> come up with [countdown].  Maybe [countdown] isn't the best name,
> either.  Alternatives could be [manyshot], [someshot], [passmany],
> [passcount] etc. What do you think?


I can say a [never] object makes no sense, while a [once] object that  
is default closed would be like "When I tell you to, then let  
something past just once".  In Pd:

|   [bang(
|   |
[once 0]
|

The question of consistency is a tough one here.   Linguistic  
consistency is what you are outlining.  From what I know most  
programming languages are more likely to adhere consistency of  
function arguments.  But its tough to say what would work better in Pd.

Words can be very vague, especially when you consider that many  
programmers will be programming in a language that is not their  
native tongue.  So it seems quite difficult to be strictly adherent  
to the words.  Of course, it should be close as possible.  But words  
are how humans communicate with each other, so the meaning of the  
language should be given attention.

So the other kind of consistency in question here is consistency of  
usage.  All similar functions should have the same arguments, for  
example.  Which type of consistency trumps the other?  That's the  
question at hand.

I personally feel that its not more linguistically consistent to have  
[once] default open when it has no argument.  But this is  
inconsistent in usage with similar objects ([spigot]...).

.hc