[PD] $1 inside a message is not saving data ?
IOhannes m zmoelnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Mon Oct 7 09:39:42 CEST 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 2013-10-07 03:13, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>>>> 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
>>> 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?
[$1] does not retain it's value.
[$1] gets evaluated at instantation time, and it could evaluate to
[print] in one patch and to [netreceive] in another patch.
if you have an abstraction "foo" containing [blu $1 $2] and you call
it once as [foo 10 20] and once as [foo 3], the latter will not have a
[blu 3 20]. [*]
the only thing that [$1] retains is, that it will evaluate to the
first argument of the patch.
msgboxes (assuming this is what you mean by [msg]) retain their
meaning in the same way: [$1( will always evaluate to the first
list-element of the incoming message.
>> 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--
>> backwards compatibility-- I see no valid argument that either way
>> 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.
i cannot recally having said that one of the two approaches is not
consistent. i only argued that the current behaviour already is
consistent (and thus consistency is a bad reason to change it)
> 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 message...
do you have examples for that?
> 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?
see above (and please clarify what the [msg] object is)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Pd-list