[PD-dev] Proposals for object categories
matju at artengine.ca
Fri Feb 27 17:48:24 CET 2009
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> i used [pix_sig2pix~] as an example about how categories often fail. it
> was the first object that came to my mind that clearly belongs into
> several categories at the same time. there are other objects (within
> zexy, vanilla, list-abs, creb, you-name-it) that are not simply "glue"
> or "math", but both and more. and this is not necessarily a design
> problem of these objects (though sometimes it might well be).
I agree: see also:
... and more mails in that thread.
> fortunately loads of object do belong to a simple category, so don't let
> Gödel stop us from trying to define such categories.
What's Gödel have to do with it at all?
(I don't necessarily agree with the rest of your mail.)
> otoh, the object interface for doing complex-math in signal-domain might
> look significantly different than the one in message-domain, or
> image-domain, or matrix-domain. so, not all objects doing complex-maths
> (in various domains) should go into the same category "complex-math"
as much as possible, interfaces that are not the same about things that
are, should be transformable by a function that takes an interfaces and
turns it into another interface. This is so that people can guess how a
class works, from the knowledge of how a similar class works. It can save
on the amount of help files too. Ideally, we'd save on the number of
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec
More information about the Pd-dev