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

marius schebella marius.schebella at gmail.com
Fri Aug 17 16:16:37 CEST 2007

the problem is, that $1 (and $<) has a different behaviour in objects 
and in messages.
I think that was taken as reason, not to make $0 having the same 
behaviour in messages, but giving it no behaviour at all and also no 
alternative solution.
but maybe there is another motivation I have not taken into 
consideration. and I am also not able to implement any of the discussed 
possibilities. I am just trying to find a lobby for either solution.


Patrice Colet wrote:
>  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
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

More information about the Pd-list mailing list