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

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2013-10-07 03:13, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>>>> 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.
> 
> ...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--
> 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.

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)

fgmasdr
IOhannes

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=zfjX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----