[PD] here I go again..dynamic abstractions

[Mike McGonagle]

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think it would make sense (both pedagogically and practically) if $0 in message boxes actually _did_ something.  Incrementing per message box would be one option, but expanding to a user-defined symbol or float could be very useful:

Actually, for me, I always think of the word "CONTEXT". An abstraction
is one context, and the meanings of the $ args means one thing. While
in a message, a $ arg means something completely different. Once I
realized that the two are not the same thing, it made sense.

If the $ args had the same meanings in both an abstraction and a
message, there would be no way to create a message inside of an
abstraction that allowed for $ args that were unrelated to the $ args
in the abstraction.

In other words, if they were the same thing, there would be no way to
create a variable message that had more args than there were in the
abstraction itself.

Mike


>
> [loadbang]
> |
> [f $0]
> |
> [; set $0(
>
> That way, message box $0 is set by an incoming message: it then sets all current (and future) message box $0's for the patch/abstraction.  Alternatively, you could use it for other stuff, like a substitution for pd-my-complicated-and-tiresome-to-type-subpatch-name.
>
> abstraction $0: set by pd, unique abs instance identifier, common to all object boxes
> message box $0: set by user through msg box, common to all abstraction instance msg's
>
> Seems like that would be consistent with the language as far as I understand it.
>
> -Jonathan
>
> --- On Mon, 2/9/09, Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PD] here I go again..dynamic abstractions
>> To: "PD-List" <pd-list at iem.at>
>> Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 9:01 PM
>> [f $0]-[message $1(  is conceptually different from [message
>> $0(  for
>> the same reason that [f $2]-[message $1(  is conceptually
>> different
>> from [message $2(  (and would be, even if $0 had any
>> meaning in a
>> message box).  When I teach I always start with dollar-sign
>> expansion
>> in message-boxes, since it's simpler and easier to
>> comprehend.  Then
>> when this issue comes up when they move to dollar-sign
>> expansion in
>> abstractions (and it always does come up), you can help
>> them think it
>> through with what they already know about message boxes.
>>
>> I only see two options:  one is to use a different
>> dereference symbol
>> for abstraction arguments in message boxes -- but why worry
>> with that
>> since it's easy enough to get abstraction arguments
>> into messages at
>> "run-time?" -- the other is to make an exception
>> and have special
>> behavior for $0 in message boxes (that is, make it the same
>> as in
>> object boxes) -- but then this probably breaks the
>> consistency of the
>> language.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>> > Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:33:36 +0100
>> > From: Georg Werner <georg at fricklr.de>
>> > Subject: Re: [PD] here I go again..dynamic
>> abstractions
>> > To: pd-list at iem.at
>> > Message-ID: <499022A0.7080702 at fricklr.de>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
>> format=flowed
>> >
>> > hi,
>> >
>> > Frank Barknecht:
>> >  > How about making $0 in messages be a message
>> counter?
>> > if somebody really needs that - i dont ;)
>> >
>> > ok, i give up. i think we are on a rather
>> philosophical point now.
>> > but i had a lot of times when students where asking
>> why they have to
>> > write [f $0]-[foobar $1( instead of [foobar $0(. so
>> this came up from a
>> > users point of view.
>> > after getting all your input (thanks). i think Claude
>> brought up the
>> > most logical solution, because this makes the
>> different functions of $
>> > obvious and obsolete. And it would help users and
>> devs. (i know it will
>> > be a long way - cause it will break some patches ...
>> :( )
>> >  > $ in message boxes is unfortunate.  If there was
>> a different symbol,
>> >  > perhaps #, you could combine both phases in one
>> object box to avoid
>> >  > jumping through pointless hoops.
>> >  > [$0-#1-$2-#3( would be nice, but as Pd is now,
>> it's a nightmare.
>> >
>> > not a nightmare, but this is one point why Pd is
>> harder to learn for
>> > beginners than it has to.
>> > georg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>



-- 

Garry Shandling  - "I'm dating a woman now who, evidently, is unaware of it."