[PD] difference send and using msg with ";"
megalegoland at yahoo.fr
Fri Aug 17 15:50:28 CEST 2007
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
> 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...
Size: 173 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Pd-list