[PD] Should message objects be able to pre-parse $0 into valid dollarzero?

[Phil Stone]

I can add nothing of substance to this argument, but agree fully with 
Ivica. In many years, I have yet to hear a convincing argument why $0 
cannot be recognized as the unique canvas identifier inside a message 
box. On the plus side, it would eliminate a great deal of cruft hanging 
off of message boxes used to kludge $0 into messages, something which 
occurs constantly, at least in my patches.


Phil Stone
UC Davis

On 9/10/14, 10:08 AM, Ivica Bukvic wrote:
>
> What about for instance arrays that should maintain scope inside a 
> specific abstraction so that you can have multiple independent 
> abstractions? $0 is very useful IMHO and is also necessary to stay due 
> to backwards compatibility concerns. Therefore, I think the discussion 
> should be limited to a simple yes or no for $0 substitution inside a 
> message as it does not introduce a myriad of other questions.
>
> Having message recognize it as such (the code already seeks to resolve 
> dollarzero but fails because the canvas was not set as current which 
> should be a simple addition of a couple of lines of code) makes sense 
> even if the only benefit is not having to do [$0] or what you are 
> suggesting, namely [zerofy-me]. It is also worth noting that there is 
> no reason why the two could not coexist.
>
> Yet, as it stands right now, $0, contrary to what has been already 
> said in both threads on this topic, is an anomaly inside a message box 
> and behaves like nothing else anywhere else in the code and as such 
> this should be a no-brainer fix, just like having a trigger with 
> static values, like [t 0 f 1] for opening a gate, passing a value, and 
> then immediately closing it. This is what pd-l2ork does (and so does 
> Max). So, rather than putting redundant messages with static values 
> below the [t b] outlet, one object solves it all. To me this is the 
> same situation where message can do it all, and if that makes my 
> patching quicker, I am all for it.
>
> On Sep 10, 2014 12:48 PM, "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancsika at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:jancsika at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>     Two things:
>
>     1) the lack of "$0" in messages is only a symptom of a bigger
>     problem with scope of binding symbols in Pd. I'd rather see new
>     objects (or wrapper objects) that handle scope in a sensible
>     manner which doesn't require typing "$0-" at all.  There's already
>     no need for $0 in your preset_hub/node design.  Why not extend the
>     hub/node idea and get rid of the need for $0 completely?
>
>     [hub]/[node] = [send]/[receive]
>     [hub~]/[node~] = [throw~]/[catch~]
>     etc.
>
>     2) On a more superficial note, isn't the problem that Pd doesn't
>     store stray "\n" characters in message boxes? The only time I can
>     think of when one would have a real desire for $0 in a message box
>     is when initializing a bunch of receivers:
>
>     [; $0-foo 1;
>     $0-bar 2;
>     $0-flub 3;(
>
>     But if the box stored "\n" you could get the same clean format
>     with commas:
>     [foo 1,
>     bar 2,
>     flub 3(
>     |
>     [zerofy-me] <- add a "$0-" to the selector
>     | |
>     [send]
>
>     No ugly zeros, no leading semi-colon, everybody wins!
>
>     -Jonathan
>
>
>     On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:27 AM, Ivica Bukvic <ico at vt.edu
>     <mailto:ico at vt.edu>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Sep 10, 2014 1:17 AM, "Chris McCormick" <chris at mccormick.cx
>     <mailto:chris at mccormick.cx>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi Ivica,
>     >
>     > On 10/09/14 04:19, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>     > > Yet, I wonder why message shouldn't be able to pre-parse $0
>     into a valid
>     > > dollarzero (canvas instance), when there will never be a
>     message one
>     > >
>     > > Thoughts?
>     >
>     > There has been a lot of discussion regarding this over the years
>     which
>     > might be good to read to get an idea on the different
>     > philosophical/language design issues:
>     >
>     >
>     <http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.puredata.general/56365>
>     Thanks, Chris, for bringing this to my attention. Since one of
>     Miller's core ideas behind pd is absolute backwards compatibility,
>     most of alternatives suggested in that thread would cause
>     unacceptable breakage with backwards compatibility or a really
>     kludge workaround for the support of legacy patches. It seems to
>     me Phil really has a point I completely agree with. FWIW, I am
>     looking to implement this in pd-l2ork and as soon as I get a
>     better idea about the recursion Miller mentioned and how to
>     circumvent it, it should find its way into pd-l2ork's source.
>     Best,
>     Ico
>     >
>     > Cheers,
>     >
>     > Chris.
>     >
>     > --
>     > http://mccormick.cx/
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list at lists.iem.at> mailing list
>     UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>     http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>


-- 
Phil Stone
Programmer - Application Development Team
Information Technology
UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine
530-752-5282 (o)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20140910/eaacdc5b/attachment.html>