Re: [sc-users] OK to change AdhocClass -> Prototype?

["Luke Selden" <lselden@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'd vote Prototype.

~luke

On Dec 16, 2007 1:42 PM, Julian Rohrhuber <rohrhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think you should rename it to Prototype, or Proto.
>
> >Is anybody using AdhocClass in my library?
> >
> >If so (or even if not), would anybody object terribly if I changed
> >the name of this class to Prototype?
> >
> >Pros:
> >
> >As a name, AdhocClass is kind of weird.
> >Calling it Prototype makes explicit the connection to earlier work
> >in prototype-based programming.
> >
> >Cons:
> >
> >Usurping a general word for a specific use in my class library.
> >This class is not the only way to do prototyping in SuperCollider,
> >so should it masquerade as "the" prototyping standard?
> >Only a minor issue: the need to update code for the new class name
> >(easy to do with sed).
> >
> >I can't decide... somebody push me one way or the other... thanks!
> >hjh
> >
> >
> >: H. James Harkins
> >
> >: <mailto:jamshark70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>jamshark70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >: <http://www.dewdrop-world.net>http://www.dewdrop-world.net
> >
> >.::!:.:.......:.::........:..!.::.::...:..:...:.:.:.:..:
> >
> >
> >"Come said the Muse,
> >
> >Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted,
> >
> >Sing me the universal."  -- Whitman
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >sc-users mailing list
> >sc-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-users