[PD] $1 inside a message is not saving data ?
Ivica Ico Bukvic
ico at vt.edu
Mon Oct 7 03:13:16 CEST 2013
> >> and as such it seems logical that a msg should retain its last known
> > 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.
...how is [$1] retains value and [msg] doesn't (except it does anything
other than $n) consistent?
> As you said, it's consistent in terms of having been Pd's dollarsign
> "forever". Outside of that specific type of consistency across time--
> backwards compatibility-- I see no valid argument that either way is
> 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
> (They'd get padded with the old value.)
Then, there are those situations where properly formed message is passed
through the msg object with no reported errors but is still malformed
according to the receiving object below msg. An error is thrown by the
receiving object but one has no way of recreating and studying the offending
Another thought is that just like [$1] retains last data value during
runtime, shouldn't [msg] too? After all [msg] retains the rest of the list
inside it not only during runtime but also during save, so why would not it
retain its last data during runtime?
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
More information about the Pd-list