[PD] Finding "$0" and dealing with it in messages

[Phil Stone]

Matt Barber wrote:
> I am saying two things:
>
> 1) Without $0 or something similar, the only way to guarantee similar
> locality would be through use of $1 or $n -- you would have to
> manually give each instance an instance number.  Sometimes you even
> want to be able to group instances in the way you suggested.  I'm not
> sure of the history of Pd, but if $0 was implemented after
> abstractions with arguments, then manually assigning locality was
> probably necessary.
>
> 2) Sometimes $0 NEEDS to be inherited (probably as $1 or some such) by
> various helper abstractions within a larger, higher-functioning
> abstraction.  This is especially the case with dynamic patching --
> imagine, say, a "bell synthesis" patch using a dynamically created
> bank of enveloped oscillator abstractions.  In that case, you'd want
> each oscillator abstraction to [throw~] to the same [catch~] within
> the parent "instrument" abstraction.  To do this, you could have
> [catch~ $0-out] within the parent, and [throw $1-out] within each
> child, while passing the parent's $0 to the children.
>
> So all I'm saying is that $1-$n often plays a really important role in
> locality, in addition to a number of other things, and to me it seems
> almost natural to use $0 as an analogy for this role.

Good points, all.

> I personally
> love the idea of using $0 as the selector of the abstraction -- its
> name or filename, and $$ as its ID, but too late for that now.
>   

I can't disagree with this, either.  Though, in the spirit of wishful 
thinking, I'll go it one further: abstraction arguments would ideally 
have a different form than message arguments.  E.g. #0...#n for message 
args., and $0...$n for abstraction args. (or, the other way around, 
whatever)...  Then (and only then, I think) would this discussion not be 
on auto-repeat here.



Phil
http://www.pkstonemusic.com/pubmusic.html