[PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
danomatika at gmail.com
Tue Sep 4 09:55:00 CEST 2018
I'd say this is a "paper cut." It's a small issue easily worked around by the addition of an extra step, but that extra step is painful due to it's repetition. Also, I've seen it be a confusing step for many beginners once they learn to use $0 in objects, ie [f $0], [symbol $0], etc.
I'm on the side of $0 in message boxes. I don't see how this change would break anything since $0 currently resolves to 0 (I think), and I cannot imagine anyone relying on this. Is it a controversy?
> On Sep 4, 2018, at 9:41 AM, pd-dev-request at lists.iem.at wrote:
> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 21:02:39 -0700
> From: Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu <mailto:msp at ucsd.edu>>
> To: Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com <mailto:porres at gmail.com>>
> Cc: Henri Augusto Bisognini <msndohenri at hotmail.com <mailto:msndohenri at hotmail.com>>, pd-dev
> <pd-dev at lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-dev at lists.iem.at>>
> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
> Message-ID: <20180904040239.GF25025 at ucsd.edu <mailto:20180904040239.GF25025 at ucsd.edu>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> This one is mired in controversy. Meanwhile, you can get "$0" functionality
> in a message box by preceeding it with "list prepend $0" so that $1 in the
> message box is teh patch's $0 and the other $ arguments are renumbered by one.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-dev