[PD-dev] $0 in messages, was: multiple $arg-expansion

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jan 15, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Tim Blechmann wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:24:06 +0100
> IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> wrote:
>
>> personally i have to admit, that i don't have problems with $ in
>> objects and $ in messages. for me it really emphasizes the difference
>> between a message (an event; only exists _now_; no knowledge of its
>> environment) and an object (a process (a storage); persistant; ...)
>
> well, i distinguishing # and $ for messages / objects would increase
> the expressive power of the language pd, since two different language
> features are expressed differently ...

I don't see how adding # variables would give you anything but a  
shortcut.  I don't think it would give you anything that you can't do  
currently with Pd.  Do you have any examples?

> reusing keywords for different features makes a language lot easier to
> read / understand ... just compare with the different semantic of the
> keyword 'static' in c++ ...

The C/C++ static keyword is bad yes, but Pd's $ args are much simpler.   
$ args are variables that are replaced on instantiation.  Messages are  
instantiated at a different time than objects, hence the confusion.   
But the definition of Pd's $ args is quite simple.

.hc

>
> just my 1.5707963¢ ... tim
>
> --  
> mailto:TimBlechmann at gmx.de    ICQ: 96771783
> http://www.mokabar.tk
>
> Which is more musical, a truck passing by a factory or a truck passing
> by a music school?
>   John Cage
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>

________________________________________________________________________ 
____

"Looking at things from a more basic level, you can come up with a more  
direct solution... It may sound small in theory, but it in practice, it  
can change entire economies."
                                                     - Amy Smith