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

[Christof Ressi]

I think you're extrapolating from your particular use case.

I would say most people use $0 for private variables/resources. In this 
case the very point is that those are not accessible from outside. If I 
do want to make things accessible from the outside, I wouldn't use $0 in 
the first place...

On 02.12.2021 14:25, Antoine Rousseau wrote:
>
>     Without the "$$" syntax, I wouldn't see the problem...
>
>
> encouraging the use of $0 in messages, without allowing to easily 
> substitute with [another way to identify the abstraction] $1?..
>
>
>
> Le jeu. 2 déc. 2021 à 13:18, Christof Ressi <info at christofressi.com> a 
> écrit :
>
>>     So I think it's better to keep the $0/$n symmetry.
>>
>>         I think having a "message" object is a better idea [than $$'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...
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
>     UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>     https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20211202/a670d3aa/attachment-0001.htm>