name for generalized hand
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Christian Helbling
Oct 20, 2020, 4:54:50 PM10/20/20
to juggling-inte...@googlegroups.com
New thread just for the naming :)
On 18.10.20 15:29, Adrian Goldwaser wrote:
>> I'm thinking of everything that can hold/store props. Is that general enough?
> That seems general enough, unless we want to define limbs specifically for movement events? But I can't think of anything you can move that you
> couldn't theoretically also use to manipulate a prop (maybe hold/store is a bit too specific and should be manipulate to account for taps/pushes with
> limbs that may not be able to hold it, but that's just being pedantic at that point)
>
>> Any good name for it?
> Yeah that's the hard part... Manipulator is the right meaning except that we already have a meaning for it. I don't have a good name really, the best
> I can think of is 'handler' or 'controller' but they don't quite fit really...
Of those two I like handler better.
On 18.10.20 20:44, JaCo Stuifbergen wrote:
>> Any good name for it?
> manipulator, handler, controller suggest a very active role, also when the limb is mainly holding the object.
> "socket" comes to my mind.
I don't like socket too much, but in my quest for a name I came across port.
Then I thought about the internet/network analogy where a port belongs to a host.
So host would then be the general word for juggler.
In networking socket would indeed mean host + port.
Most words are either active or passive. Our generalized hands can have the full range:
from completely passive like floor to something like a ceiling that can only bounce objects back without holding them.
However, Its quite hard to find something that fits both.
The best word I could find up to this point is dock.
Its where props attach to some host (like a juggler, table, floor, ..).
Cheers
Christian
On 18.10.20 15:29, Adrian Goldwaser wrote:
>> I'm thinking of everything that can hold/store props. Is that general enough?
> That seems general enough, unless we want to define limbs specifically for movement events? But I can't think of anything you can move that you
> couldn't theoretically also use to manipulate a prop (maybe hold/store is a bit too specific and should be manipulate to account for taps/pushes with
> limbs that may not be able to hold it, but that's just being pedantic at that point)
>
>> Any good name for it?
> Yeah that's the hard part... Manipulator is the right meaning except that we already have a meaning for it. I don't have a good name really, the best
> I can think of is 'handler' or 'controller' but they don't quite fit really...
Of those two I like handler better.
On 18.10.20 20:44, JaCo Stuifbergen wrote:
>> Any good name for it?
> manipulator, handler, controller suggest a very active role, also when the limb is mainly holding the object.
> "socket" comes to my mind.
I don't like socket too much, but in my quest for a name I came across port.
Then I thought about the internet/network analogy where a port belongs to a host.
So host would then be the general word for juggler.
In networking socket would indeed mean host + port.
Most words are either active or passive. Our generalized hands can have the full range:
from completely passive like floor to something like a ceiling that can only bounce objects back without holding them.
However, Its quite hard to find something that fits both.
The best word I could find up to this point is dock.
Its where props attach to some host (like a juggler, table, floor, ..).
Cheers
Christian
JaCo Stuifbergen
Oct 21, 2020, 9:16:08 AM10/21/20
to juggling-interchange-format
It is a good idea to create a new thread.
In networking socket would indeed mean host + port.
I confess my ignorance.
The best word I could find up to this point is dock.
Its where props attach to some host (like a juggler, table, floor, ..).
"dock" reminds me of shipyards.
"docket" as a compromise ?
Just joking, "dock" seems OK for me.
I t is perhaps a bit abstract, but a very neutral word (not reserved for parts of the body).
Co Stuifbergen
=========================
in...@jacos.nl
www.jacos.nl
+31 6 13 02 44 69 (mobile)
Kloosterwei 102
2361 XN Warmond
the Netherlands
=========================
=========================
in...@jacos.nl
www.jacos.nl
+31 6 13 02 44 69 (mobile)
Kloosterwei 102
2361 XN Warmond
the Netherlands
=========================
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "juggling-interchange-format" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to juggling-interchang...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/juggling-interchange-format/14ca0310-c583-d220-90b6-2a5ec26ad5b6%40helch.ch.
Adrian Goldwaser
Oct 21, 2020, 9:28:16 AM10/21/20
to JaCo Stuifbergen, juggling-interchange-format
Had a bit of a think about each of these and what my impression would be in using them in code - I feel like 'hand' is actually the clearest in most cases even if it's 'wrong' in that it's not general enough.
I think choosing anything else (maybe with the exception of 'limb') will be confusing to almost everyone, whereas 'hand' will be completely obvious in 99.9% of cases (there are currently no simulators which would use anything except hands afaik), and in the remaining cases I'd argue it's just as clear as using some word which is completely unrelated to juggling and would require reading through a bunch of documentation to understand anyway. If we find a word that really fits then definitely go for it, otherwise I'd be in favour of going with 'hand' or 'limb' despite it being limited and not conveying exactly what we want (which I'd argue is also true of all the other suggestions). I don't dislike any of the other words, I just think they'll end up causing more confusion than they save in the end.
> "docket" as a compromise ?
Heh
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/juggling-interchange-format/CAKHXiFJbdwiGFm9VBzVYf8d_A2PeTa3BpONo4OJGdi85Qi2WzQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Christian Helbling
Oct 21, 2020, 3:16:59 PM10/21/20
to juggling-inte...@googlegroups.com
On 21.10.20 15:28, Adrian Goldwaser wrote:
> Had a bit of a think about each of these and what my impression would be in using them in code - I feel like 'hand' is actually the clearest in most
> cases even if it's 'wrong' in that it's not general enough.
>
> I think choosing anything else (maybe with the exception of 'limb') will be confusing to almost everyone, whereas 'hand' will be completely obvious in
> 99.9% of cases (there are currently no simulators which would use anything except hands afaik), and in the remaining cases I'd argue it's just as
> clear as using some word which is completely unrelated to juggling and would require reading through a bunch of documentation to understand anyway. If
> we find a word that really fits then definitely go for it, otherwise I'd be in favour of going with 'hand' or 'limb' despite it being limited and not
> conveying exactly what we want (which I'd argue is also true of all the other suggestions). I don't dislike any of the other words, I just think
> they'll end up causing more confusion than they save in the end.
Okay, lets go with hand or limb.
> Had a bit of a think about each of these and what my impression would be in using them in code - I feel like 'hand' is actually the clearest in most
> cases even if it's 'wrong' in that it's not general enough.
>
> I think choosing anything else (maybe with the exception of 'limb') will be confusing to almost everyone, whereas 'hand' will be completely obvious in
> 99.9% of cases (there are currently no simulators which would use anything except hands afaik), and in the remaining cases I'd argue it's just as
> clear as using some word which is completely unrelated to juggling and would require reading through a bunch of documentation to understand anyway. If
> we find a word that really fits then definitely go for it, otherwise I'd be in favour of going with 'hand' or 'limb' despite it being limited and not
> conveying exactly what we want (which I'd argue is also true of all the other suggestions). I don't dislike any of the other words, I just think
> they'll end up causing more confusion than they save in the end.
From the word itself, I like hand more.
However, its a bit awkward to define the individual hand definition as being an actual hand:
hands: [
{ juggler: 0, limb:"right hand"},
{ juggler: 1, limb:"right hand"},
..
]
Also there is still "limb" as a key inside the individual definition which could need a better name
(with both hands and limbs as the top-level choice).
When using limbs it would express the more general nature a bit better.
For either choice we could rectify things by using some creative backronym.
Something like
logically indistinguishable manipulation bit
for limb.
by the way:
When thinking about it, for throws I'd prefer the simple
{ time:0, duration:10, from:0, to:2, prop:0, .. },
over
{ time:0, duration:10, fromHand:0, toHand:2, prop:0, .. },
or
{ time:0, duration:10, fromLimb:0, toLimb:2, prop:0, .. },
Cheers
Christian
Adrian Goldwaser
Oct 22, 2020, 6:54:33 AM10/22/20
to juggling-interchange-format
Not sure I'm following this?
> Also there is still "limb" as a key inside the individual definition which could need a better name
> (with both hands and limbs as the top-level choice).
> (with both hands and limbs as the top-level choice).
Ah, you think they should be different? I was personally imagining `hands: [{juggler:0, hand='Right hand'}]` but not too fussed - I think the array name is more important as that's the one that will be used more regularly.
> logically indistinguishable manipulation bit
Aha, nice!
> When thinking about it, for throws I'd prefer the simple
> { time:0, duration:10, from:0, to:2, prop:0, .. },Yep, I agree - I had toHand because in my head toJuggler still existed, but we don't need that if they're just references to an array. I think this also makes me more ambivalent towards names if it's mostly used earlier.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "juggling-interchange-format" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to juggling-interchang...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/juggling-interchange-format/bef1fb60-3545-eeb5-0d09-08102cc1b12e%40helch.ch.
JaCo Stuifbergen
Oct 24, 2020, 2:43:25 AM10/24/20
to juggling-interchange-format
Christian wrote:
Hmm, "destination" is not too bad as a word.
A problem is that a throw has a starting point and a destination.
So it would be from a destination to a destination.
Co Stuifbergen
=========================
in...@jacos.nl
www.jacos.nl
+31 6 13 02 44 69 (mobile)
Kloosterwei 102
2361 XN Warmond
the Netherlands
=========================
=========================
in...@jacos.nl
www.jacos.nl
+31 6 13 02 44 69 (mobile)
Kloosterwei 102
2361 XN Warmond
the Netherlands
=========================
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/juggling-interchange-format/CAPORLgEoUU8PSVZBEGzrS1uq3%3DOo2m%2Bzgb1-CLrouYv8faQpQg%40mail.gmail.com.
Lukas
Oct 24, 2020, 1:24:50 PM10/24/20
to juggling-interchange-format
At the risk of not adding too much new perspective: Out of all the discussed options, I cast my vote for "limb". I very much agree with Adrian's argument to pick a common word that requires no explanation over a general one that you have to look up in the spec what it means.
On the other hand (no pun intended), I too find "hand" a bit too specific and writing the statement "hand = {type: 'left_leg', juggler: 0}"; does indeed feel quite awkward. I am very ok with the bit of mental gymnastics required to define a table or the floor as a
"limb". I would even argue that it makes it very explicit what the intent of mentioning a table in the context of some juggling pattern is :)
Cheers,
Lukas
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages