[chuck-users] heads up for 1.2.0.7

[Graham Coleman]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Spencer Salazar wrote:

> On the subject of nomenclature, is anyone else thinking about the
> relative merits of LPF, HPF, BPF, etc. vs. LowPass, HighPass,
> BandPass, etc.?  Obviously the acronym versions are faster to type,
> which would be important in live-coding situations.  However it seems
> to me that spelling them out fits in more with the current ugen
> naming scheme, might be a little easier to read, and also might be a
> little easier to understand for people new to electronic music.

Spelling them out seems more readable to me, and that perhaps typing
english words seems easier than wierd but familiar acronyms.

This morning I had an idea! You could give the class two names. Like
aliasing or something. Kind of like deprecation but without the warning.
It definitely won't help standards / orthography but it would be
irreverantly novel.

StifKarp k1 => HighPass hp1 => dac; //works!
StifKarp k2 => HPF hp2 => dac; //also works!

Graham

> (I dont have a huge vested interest in either way--just wanted to
> throw out a few thoughts before things get set in stone in the next
> release.)
>
> spencer
>
> On Sep 11, 2006, at 4:26 PM, Ollie Glass wrote:
>
> > I think the CamelCase is great, it brings ChucK syntax a little
> > closer to Java which suits me :-)
> >
> > I've found deprecations very useful in Java to smooth transitions
> > between versions, glad they're being used in ChucK.
> >
> > Would love to see VST input and output, audio and midi.
> >
> > Ollie
> > _______________________________________________
> > chuck-users mailing list
> > chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>