[PD] '$0' in messages again, another proposal? (Was: Pd 0.52 test 2 is out)

[Christof Ressi]

> So I think it's better to keep the $0/$n symmetry.
>
>     I think having a "message" object is a better idea [than $$'s one]
>
>
> What I like with the $$ idea, is that it would provide a simple way to 
> merge creation arguments with variable arguments, i.e compose a 
> message with both the abstraction arguments and the incoming message 
> elements.

I have to say I quite like the "$$" idea as well, assuming that we can 
take the risk of breaking a few patches (if any).

I don't think it's a good idea to add a new object just for this 
functionality. For me this would create unnecessary complexity (you have 
to learn yet another object).

> I'm not sure either. To me, both $0 and $1 etc. can be used to 
> identify an instance of an abstraction.
> IMO $0 is the quick way, but has the limitation to make it (nearly) 
> impossible to access members from the outside.
> That's why it often happened to me to rename an instance [myAbs] to 
> e.g [myAbs myabs1], then to replace $0 in [myAbs] with $1, so I can 
> easily access [myAbs]'s members from the parent - from anywhere in 
> fact (Actually, nowadays I tend to use as few $0 as possible).
> If we could use $0 in messages, then the last operation would be more 
> complicated (cause you couldn't simply substitute $0 with e.g $1).

I agree that if we get the "$$" syntax, then it makes more sense to use 
"$$0" for the $0 argument! Without the "$$" syntax, I wouldn't see the 
problem...

One downside of using "$$0" is that it wouldn't be compatible with 
Pd-L2Ork / PurrData.If they have already diverged significantly, we 
probably don't have to care, but otherwise...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20211202/bccc531a/attachment.htm>