[PD] difference send and using msg with ";"

Matteo Sisti Sette matteo.sistisette at email.it
Fri Aug 17 12:09:42 CEST 2007

Mathieu Bouchard wrote
(and a few other people wrote something similar):

> $0 in objectboxes is already inconsistent with $1,$2,$3,... in
> objectboxes, so, it's not clear that $0 in messagebox has to be consistent
> with anything at all.

$0 is inconsistent with $1, $2 etc strictly speaking, but you may think of 
$0 as of an "implicit creation argument". The name $0 has the same scope of 
the names $1,$2, in the sense that: in any two places where two $0's would 
have the same value, two $1's would have the same value. Both are values 
that are generated at the time of creating the object (semantically I mean, 
I don't know if it is so in implementation and it is irrelevant) and don't 
change later.
So it is not *so* inconsistent.

Making $0 mean in a message the same it means in an object box, would make 
it *a lot* more inconsistent with $1,$2 in messages than $0 is with $1,$2 in 
object boxes.
$1,$2... in messages are evaluated at the time the message box receives its 
input and generates its output; they are arguments of the message it 
receives. The "natural" object-counterpart of $0 would be a number that is 
unique to that particular message event (not message box) or message tree, 
though that would be of little or no use..... or wouldn't it?

Also, consider the following goal:
(*) give direct access to (implicit and explicit) creation arguments ($n) of 
the patch within a message

Making $0 mean the same in a message box than outside it would address goal 
(*) only for the particular case of $0 and not for n>0, and I personally 
think this isn't an elegant approach.
Also, any future attempt to address (*) for n>0, would probably result more 
difficult or have to be more inconsistend if the $0 case has been treated 
this way.

I am personally strongly against implementing $0 in messages meaning the 
same as $0 outside them. It would introduce further inconsistence. If there 
actually is some inconsistence now, it is not a good reason imho to 
deliberately introduce more inconsistence. 

 Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
 Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6905&d=17-8

More information about the Pd-list mailing list