[PD] Should message objects be able to pre-parse $0 into valid dollarzero?
Ivica Ico Bukvic
ico at vt.edu
Fri Sep 12 06:34:19 CEST 2014
On 9/11/2014 1:05 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> Yes I agree the two ideas may coexist. But I also think that if the
> two were to coexist, $0 in message boxes would pale in comparison in
> terms of usability.
> Hub/node: make a hub on a canvas. Now every node you create on that
> canvas or subcanvas belongs to that hub. If you need more than one,
> give them names.
> $0: prepend a string with this to make a special name that is unique
> to a canvas and its subpatches (but not abstractions created in
> either). The dollarsign variable will be filled in at the time the
> patch is created, and given a unique value in the running Pd
> instance. If you want a name inside an abstraction to share the $0
> with its parent, just send $0 as an abstraction argument, then use the
> corresponding argument number inside the abstraction to retrieve the
> value of the parent $0.
> I mean, if you can solve $0 in message boxes in a few hours or so then
> go ahead and do it. But if it brings up any
Not hours, but rather minutes. That is, unless I am missing something...
Still not sure, if I fully understood Miller's explanation (see my
> issues that require workarounds I think the time would be better spent
> on building out more hub/node infrastructure. (And they don't
> necessarily need to have that name, I'm just using it as a placeholder.)
> Btw-- I just heard yesterday from someone using Max/MSP about
> something like using a "#0-" prefixes to hack local scope for receive
> symbols. Is this still the case there, too?
Very much so.
> On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:08 PM, Ivica Bukvic <ico at vt.edu> 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> 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~]
> 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
> | |
> No ugly zeros, no leading semi-colon, everybody wins!
> On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:27 AM, Ivica Bukvic
> <ico at vt.edu> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2014 1:17 AM, "Chris McCormick" <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
> > might be good to read to get an idea on the different
> > philosophical/language design issues:
> 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.
> > Cheers,
> > Chris.
> > --
> > http://mccormick.cx/
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
ICAT Senior Fellow
School of Performing Arts -- 0141
Blacksburg, VA 24061
ico at vt.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list