[PD] $1 inside a message is not saving data ?

[Jonathan Wilkes]

On 10/06/2013 02:46 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> On 10/06/13 20:34, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>> A programming language is a lot about being consistent,
> yes
>
>> and as such it seems logical that a msg should retain its last known state,
> no. that's totally unrelated to being consistent.
>
> so that when receiving a bang it would output its last stored values.
>
> why?
> i think the current behaviour is very consistent though probably less
> convenient than some would like to have it.

As you said, it's consistent in terms of having been Pd's dollarsign 
behavior
"forever".  Outside of that specific type of consistency across time-- i.e.,
backwards compatibility-- I see no valid argument that either way is "more"
consistent. Both approaches are self-consistent.  They (presumably) work
exactly the same regardless of the context in which they get used in a
particular patch.

Nevertheless, I think backwards compatibility is important.  Here, the 
current
"argument out of range" error gives helpful clues to patching mistakes.  
With
Ivica's system if you set that out-of-range argument a single time then 
future
mistakes that result in too few args to the message box would go unnoticed.
(They'd get padded with the old value.)

-Jonathan