Oh, cool, yeah, that is a nice design, I see it now. <div><br></div><div>but anyways, I still see $0 as locality and the rest as inheritance, as you are just still making a child inherit (by $1) a parent's local $0 ID.<br>
<div><br></div><div>> I personally love the idea of using $0 as the selector </div><div>> of the abstraction -- its name or filename, and $$ as </div><div>> its ID, but too late for that now.</div><div><br></div>
<div>now that wasn't clear for me, but if we keep on it I suggest we might need to change the thread name maybe.</div><div><br></div><div>I hope this thread would stick to the point that the find feature could do a better job by finding "$0", and that "$0" could be used in messages since it is useless the way it is.</div>
<div><br></div><div>thanks</div><div>alex</div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Matt Barber <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com">brbrofsvl@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I am saying two things:<br>
<br>
1) Without $0 or something similar, the only way to guarantee similar<br>
locality would be through use of $1 or $n -- you would have to<br>
manually give each instance an instance number. Sometimes you even<br>
want to be able to group instances in the way you suggested. I'm not<br>
sure of the history of Pd, but if $0 was implemented after<br>
abstractions with arguments, then manually assigning locality was<br>
probably necessary.<br>
<br>
2) Sometimes $0 NEEDS to be inherited (probably as $1 or some such) by<br>
various helper abstractions within a larger, higher-functioning<br>
abstraction. This is especially the case with dynamic patching --<br>
imagine, say, a "bell synthesis" patch using a dynamically created<br>
bank of enveloped oscillator abstractions. In that case, you'd want<br>
each oscillator abstraction to [throw~] to the same [catch~] within<br>
the parent "instrument" abstraction. To do this, you could have<br>
[catch~ $0-out] within the parent, and [throw $1-out] within each<br>
child, while passing the parent's $0 to the children.<br>
<br>
So all I'm saying is that $1-$n often plays a really important role in<br>
locality, in addition to a number of other things, and to me it seems<br>
almost natural to use $0 as an analogy for this role. I personally<br>
love the idea of using $0 as the selector of the abstraction -- its<br>
name or filename, and $$ as its ID, but too late for that now.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Matt<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Alexandre Porres <<a href="mailto:porres@gmail.com">porres@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> hmm, I am sorry, I don't think I got what you meant... could you give an<br>
> example please?<br>
> The way I see is that $1...$n are related to the inheritance concept. They<br>
> could be used inside [send~] & [receive~] objects to force some sort of<br>
> locality, but you can't really guarantee locality by that, it is just some<br>
> way around that is not 100% safe, cause if you have [s $1-gain] in an<br>
> abstraction, and $1 inheriting "A" for instance, a [s A-gain] object in a<br>
> parent patch (or even on another opened patch) would still get the value<br>
> globally.<br>
> cheers<br>
> alex<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Matt Barber <<a href="mailto:brbrofsvl@gmail.com">brbrofsvl@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Without $0, one would have to use $1 ... $n for locality. $0 of a<br>
>> parent patch often needs to be passed as $1 to a child for proper<br>
>> locality, for instance, so I don't think they are necessarily THAT<br>
>> different conceptually.<br>
>><br>
>> Matt<br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Alexandre Porres <<a href="mailto:porres@gmail.com">porres@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> >> Calling this an exception creates<br>
>> >> the impression, that $1 in a message<br>
>> >> is the same as in an object.<br>
>> > Hmm, I see you have a point! But I am just used to consider "$0" and<br>
>> > "$1, $2<br>
>> > ... $n" different/separate things, being "$0" solely a locality sintax.<br>
>> > Putting them as separate concepts I see "$1, $2 ... $n" as two different<br>
>> > things wether in messages or objects, and that "$0" is just useless in<br>
>> > messages.<br>
>> > Anyway, I am cool with what needs to be done in order to put "$0" in<br>
>> > messages, I still think it's a bit of an unnecessary hassle, but it<br>
>> > ain't<br>
>> > that much of a big deal after all.<br>
>> > The thing that had no other way around was using the Find feature to<br>
>> > actually find them, so I thought about bringing this all up: the<br>
>> > hassle and<br>
>> > the problem.<br>
>> > I now see that uncheking "whole word" in the new version is just another<br>
>> > "way around" rather than actually getting the Find feature to look for<br>
>> > "$0",<br>
>> > or even for the window number once we explicitly tell it which one it<br>
>> > is.<br>
>> > So, nerverminding about "$0" in messages, I would still make a point<br>
>> > here<br>
>> > for the Find feature to be able to find "$0", I hope it isn't much<br>
>> > hassle<br>
>> > getting it to do so.<br>
>> > Thanks a bunch folks!<br>
>> > Cheers<br>
>> > alex<br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Roman Haefeli <<a href="mailto:reduzierer@yahoo.de">reduzierer@yahoo.de</a>><br>
>> > wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Am 12.11.09 17:21 schrieb "Alexandre Porres" unter <<a href="mailto:porres@gmail.com">porres@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> > But I totally disagree, I have been teaching a lot basic Pd around,<br>
>> >> > and<br>
>> >> > people<br>
>> >> > always get confused and think they can just throw "$0" in messages.<br>
>> >> > So I<br>
>> >> > have<br>
>> >> > to state and reinforce that there is an exception that it doesn't<br>
>> >> > work<br>
>> >> > on<br>
>> >> > messages.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Calling this an exception creates the impression, that $1 in a message<br>
>> >> is the same as in an object.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> > Without an exception at all, it should be easier to get it, as I<br>
>> >> > understand.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Agreed. But currently, the only thing that makes $0 in a message<br>
>> >> exceptional<br>
>> >> is the fact, that it has no meaning at all. Making it be replaced by<br>
>> >> the<br>
>> >> canvas identifier wouldn't make it less exceptional at all.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> roman<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> ___________________________________________________________<br>
>> >> Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo!<br>
>> >> Mail:<br>
>> >> <a href="http://mail.yahoo.de" target="_blank">http://mail.yahoo.de</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>