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

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

Someone could write their own message box object and make it do  
whatever they want.  Then you have both: a new interface and backwards  
compatibility.  The message box could just be a GUI object like any  
other, there is nothing inherently unique about it.

.hc

On Nov 13, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:

> Finally, we agree. I also think, that using $ twice is confusing, when
> the uses are so different.
>
> Personally, i wouldn't mind, if Pd would be changed instantaneously
> while breaking backwards compatibility. But i don't think, that it is
> realistic.
>
> roman
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 13:16 -0800, Phil Stone wrote:
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list





----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"[T]he greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own  
government." - Martin Luther King, Jr.