[PD] suggestion: $0 in messages

[Derek Kwan]

>     
>     like mostly, i'm opposing.  this has been discussed about 15 years
> ago, and my arguments still stand (mainly: consistency with
> dollar-parsing throughout Pd)

> Yes, but there is no consistency either now. So the question would be:
> is the current inconsistency a productive one (do people benefit from
> having a 0 there), or would people benefit more from having an
> inconsistency that provides them with a new useful feature?


I can see the argument (no pun intended, haha) here where $1 $2 (and $0
included) mean very different things in non-messages (patch arguments
where $0 is the internal/default argument) vs messages and having $0
resolve in messages as it would in objects could be quite confusing
as we're mixing two worlds (and then users would perhaps expect $1 $2
and so on to resolve similarly but they don't). So the matter of
consistency would be in message world and non-message world where $0
is just simply out of range in message world (as $100 would be if your
incoming list doesn't have 100 atoms).

Note that this opens the can of worms of not only message boxes but also
things like [text] where $0 behaves as it does in messages boxes.

>
> For me, I can't count how many times I had to add a [$0], or a pack or
> some extra workaround before a message so that I could send messages
> to my variables (I hardly use variables without a $0).
>
> Joao

I do face this too where I use $0 with all my [v]s and [s]s and [r]s and
it does get to be a bit tedious BUT I'm not quite sure if mixing the two
worlds and their rules are worth it...

-- 
Derek Kwan
www.derekxkwan.com