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

[Patrice Colet]

  You know what, all along the hundreds of lines I've been reading in 
the list about $0, I don't get a single consistent reason why it hasn't 
the same behavior in object and message boxes.

Matteo Sisti Sette a écrit :
> 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
>  
>  Sponsor:
>  
>  Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6905&d=17-8
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: megalegoland.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 173 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20070817/daac788f/attachment.vcf>