[PD] "object" or "class" in pdpedia

Thomas Grill gr at grrrr.org
Thu Sep 13 16:54:46 CEST 2007


Hi Marius,
what i wrote in the last mail is my personal usage of notions up till  
now (because i was asked). I don't think that it's the way to go.

The meta term for me is "object", as said before.

gr~~~

Am 13.09.2007 um 16:51 schrieb marius schebella:

> Thomas Grill wrote:
>> For abstractions, the word is "abstraction". An abstraction in  
>> turn contains objects that may be of type "message", "sub patch",  
>> "abstraction" or "external/binary object".
>> I always use "external object" to mean an object that can't be  
>> opened as a patch.
>
> for pdpedia I would like to have the same page layout for external  
> objects and abstractions. I am talking about standardized  
> abstractions like the pdmtl abstractions. I refer to the pd  
> fileformat, that lists abstractions as "obj". I therefore tend to  
> call abstraction also "objects".
> a message in my opinion is no object. I think also a sub patch is  
> not a real object, although it is created in an object box. (if you  
> open the pd file with a text editor, you will not find the word  
> "obj", it is a canvas, which is also not an object for me, I am not  
> sure about atomboxes (numbers and symbols). but also arrays and  
> comments are no objects in that sense.
> otherwise, please can someone find a meta term for "everything that  
> can be created inside an objectbox (ctrl-1)".
> marius.
>





More information about the Pd-list mailing list