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

Jonathan Wilkes jancsika at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 6 23:14:24 CEST 2013

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 
"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 
"argument out of range" error gives helpful clues to patching mistakes.  
Ivica's system if you set that out-of-range argument a single time then 
mistakes that result in too few args to the message box would go unnoticed.
(They'd get padded with the old value.)


More information about the Pd-list mailing list