atom feed161 messages in at.iem.pd-devRe: [PD-dev] pow~ in Cyclone [was: Re...
FromSent OnAttachments
80 earlier messages
Andy FarnellFeb 18, 2009 10:56 am 
Andy FarnellFeb 18, 2009 10:58 am 
cyrille henryFeb 18, 2009 11:01 am 
IOhannes m zmoelnigFeb 18, 2009 11:19 am 
cyrille henryFeb 18, 2009 11:28 am 
cyrille henryFeb 18, 2009 11:35 am 
Mathieu BouchardFeb 18, 2009 11:57 am 
IOhannes m zmoelnigFeb 18, 2009 12:06 pm 
IOhannes m zmoelnigFeb 18, 2009 12:07 pm 
Matt BarberFeb 18, 2009 12:17 pm 
Martin PeachFeb 18, 2009 1:39 pm 
Andy FarnellFeb 18, 2009 1:46 pm 
Roman HaefeliFeb 18, 2009 3:39 pm 
Roman HaefeliFeb 18, 2009 3:49 pm 
Roman HaefeliFeb 18, 2009 4:03 pm 
Roman HaefeliFeb 18, 2009 4:32 pm 
marius schebellaFeb 18, 2009 10:41 pm 
Frank BarknechtFeb 18, 2009 11:16 pm 
marius schebellaFeb 18, 2009 11:27 pm 
Mathieu BouchardFeb 18, 2009 11:47 pm 
IOhannes m zmoelnigFeb 19, 2009 12:45 am 
IOhannes m zmoelnigFeb 19, 2009 12:50 am 
IOhannes m zmoelnigFeb 19, 2009 12:52 am 
Damian StewartFeb 19, 2009 12:53 am 
IOhannes m zmoelnigFeb 19, 2009 12:55 am 
IOhannes m zmoelnigFeb 19, 2009 1:00 am 
Matt BarberFeb 19, 2009 1:15 am 
cyrille henryFeb 19, 2009 2:07 am 
Frank BarknechtFeb 19, 2009 6:04 am 
Martin PeachFeb 19, 2009 6:14 am 
Mathieu BouchardFeb 19, 2009 7:21 am 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 19, 2009 9:27 am 
IOhannes m zmoelnigFeb 19, 2009 10:15 am 
Mathieu BouchardFeb 19, 2009 10:28 am 
Roman HaefeliFeb 19, 2009 3:10 pm 
Roman HaefeliFeb 19, 2009 3:26 pm 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 19, 2009 9:33 pm 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 19, 2009 9:40 pm 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 19, 2009 9:48 pm 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 19, 2009 10:07 pm 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 19, 2009 10:08 pm 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 19, 2009 10:09 pm 
Frank BarknechtFeb 19, 2009 11:06 pm 
IOhannes m zmoelnigFeb 20, 2009 12:48 am 
Mathieu BouchardFeb 20, 2009 12:59 am 
Mathieu BouchardFeb 20, 2009 1:21 am 
João PaisFeb 20, 2009 2:10 am.xls
Claude Heiland-AllenFeb 20, 2009 6:23 am 
IOhannes m zmoelnigFeb 20, 2009 7:18 am 
Roman HaefeliFeb 22, 2009 2:53 am 
João PaisFeb 22, 2009 2:57 pm 
João PaisFeb 22, 2009 3:11 pm 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 22, 2009 3:43 pm 
cyrille henryFeb 22, 2009 4:49 pm 
Mathieu BouchardFeb 22, 2009 5:32 pm 
Mathieu BouchardFeb 22, 2009 6:09 pm 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 22, 2009 8:50 pm 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 22, 2009 9:02 pm 
Frank BarknechtFeb 23, 2009 12:34 am 
Frank BarknechtFeb 23, 2009 1:03 am 
cyrille henryFeb 23, 2009 2:53 am 
IOhannes m zmoelnigFeb 23, 2009 3:21 am 
IOhannes m zmoelnigFeb 23, 2009 3:37 am 
Andy FarnellFeb 23, 2009 3:58 am 
Mathieu BouchardFeb 23, 2009 5:04 am 
Andy FarnellFeb 23, 2009 5:19 am 
cyrille henryFeb 23, 2009 9:27 am 
Roman HaefeliFeb 23, 2009 9:48 am 
Loic KessousFeb 23, 2009 11:33 am 
João PaisFeb 23, 2009 12:52 pm 
João PaisFeb 23, 2009 1:10 pm 
cyrille henryFeb 23, 2009 3:16 pm 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 23, 2009 4:07 pm 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 23, 2009 4:14 pm 
Loic KessousFeb 24, 2009 4:06 am 
cyrille henryFeb 24, 2009 8:48 am 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 24, 2009 5:05 pm 
cyrille henryFeb 25, 2009 2:00 am 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 25, 2009 7:29 am 
cyrille henryFeb 25, 2009 10:22 am 
Hans-Christoph SteinerFeb 25, 2009 11:37 am 
Subject:Re: [PD-dev] pow~ in Cyclone [was: Re: stripping down Pd-extended's default libs]
From:Roman Haefeli (redu@yahoo.de)
Date:Feb 22, 2009 2:53:16 am
List:at.iem.pd-dev

On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 10:00 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

Roman Haefeli wrote:

i think, that the question, why a new object [pack] is named pack is not rhetoric at all and isn't answered yet. so lets go again: why is [pack] from zexy called [pack]?

apart from the specifics of [pack]: if a language allows the overriding of built-in methods, then i do not see why a social codex (which is what you are asking for, right?) should forbid it. especially, if a language introduces ways to override built-in methods after years of existance, it actually encourages the overriding of built-in methods.

yo.. your point is perfectly valid. call me stubborn, but i still don't see the goal of: a) allowing to override internals b) actually using that feature but you are right: there is no reason, that should discourage you from using the new feature.

i guess miller has spent countless of sleepless hours thinking and rethinking how to do this best, so we probably should adapt to it.

whatever conclusion miller came to, i didn't get it.

roman