[PD] namecanvas obsolete? Why? Re: Dynamic Graph on Parent

[brandon zeeb]

http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2004-12/003428.html

Essentially, being able to send a message to the current canvas in
vanilla-pd without naming it, "this" in the current context is similar to
the Java concept of "this".

If Miller wants to remove [namecanvas], just give us a "this" expression!
 What about $! ?

~Brandon

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Mathieu Bouchard <matju at artengine.ca>wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
>  iirc, the reason for obsoleting [namecanvas] is that it allows the dynamic
>> patching engine to get into an inconsistent (probably crashing) state (true,
>> there are other things that allow this as well, without getting obsoleted).
>>
>
> Especially, you can crash pd using the thing that is supposed to be
> replacing namecanvas, using a total of 3 objects. So, the reason for
> obsoleting [namecanvas] is bogus. Here's an attachment for demonstrating
> that.
>
>
>  anyhow, [namecanvas] has no concept of "this" either.
>>
>
> What's a concept of "this", to you ? It seems that we don't agree on
> this... we're not using the same vocabulary.
>
>
>  _______________________________________________________________________
> | Mathieu Bouchard ------------------------------ Villeray, Montréal, QC
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20100930/5a06ef32/attachment.htm>