On 9/3/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">robin.escalation</b> <<a href="mailto:robin.escalation@acm.org">robin.escalation@acm.org</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> I'm not sure what those are or why we need them, could you kindly<br>> explain?<br><br>I'll explain using Python, which I am the most familiar with. Each<br>file of code is a module, which can contain an arbitrary number of
<br>functions or classes. Each of these has their own addressable<br>namespace, but the key thing is that the module itself has its own<br>namespace too.</blockquote><div><br>Ok, got it. </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>As I understand it, in ChucK there is nothing similar to an import.<br>Files do not have explicit namespaces, though one is created if a<br>file is sporked as a shred. But this is not addressable, it merely<br>keeps private data in each process from colliding. A further
<br>limitation is there can be only one public class in a file.</blockquote><div><br>Yes, you are right. As you might've seen in the list archives; we just went trough a process where everybody could list his/her wishes and sugestions for chucK and a import/inclusion process turned out to be very high on that list.
<br><br>Likely this will (have to?) bring a more sophisiticated namespace method with it. In my own experience the current method covers the needs of chucK. Another matter is that in the past far more people ran into a desire to have seperate elements share their namespace then that ran into the desire for more seperation. Perhaps this will change as imports/inclusions make it easier and more inviting to start larger projects.
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>Oh yes, I know about the audicle and have tried it. Someday this<br>might rule the world. But it's still not a word. :-)
</blockquote><div><br>Ah, sorry, for a moment I thought you were unaware of the Audicle. Personally I like how it's named; it's a new thing, arguably it's a completely new *sort* of thing so it has a new name. The same hold true for "spork".
<br><br>"Cubase" isn't a word either yet that doesn't seem to cause any confusion or loss of sales either compared to "Logic", "Sonar" or "Live" which are words.<br> </div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">> SuperCollider has a very cool name, I admit. Future writers might<br>> engage in<br>
> long articles interperting the act of chucking something in<br>> comparision to<br>> the effect of it colliding against something else *ducks*.<br><br>This would be good fun and is not totally a joke. As a poet I would
<br>argue that how we name things and what language we choose to describe<br>them affects how we work with them in an intimate way.</blockquote><div><br>Yeah, absolutely. SC-fanatics will likely interpert the analogies with a different emphasis, could be a fun debate :¬)
<br><br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">One of the reasons I like ChucK is that the expressive use of the<br>language, especially the chuck operator, makes good sense to me for
<br>the domain of audio operations.</blockquote><div><br>Same here. After a long time of thinking like "sending this there, then making foo go to bar and seeing what happens" the "ChucK" name might well become more apealing to you. I mean; we realy are sending stuff in directions, sometimes like a ninja throwing stars, at others more like a drunk garbage-man. Perhaps ChucK will once get so mature and stable that "chucking" no longer seems like a apropriate analogy, perhaps at that stage we will have to considder a different name that expresses a more precise and controlled sort of throwing.
<br><br>Perhaps "ParticleAccelerator" ;¬).<br> </div><br>Cheers,<br>Kas.<br><br>P.S. joking aside I think SC is great and so are my SC-using friends, I believe we can learn a lot from them.<br></div>