[PD] '$0' in messages again, another proposal? (Was: Pd 0.52 test 2 is out)
Christof Ressi
info at christofressi.com
Thu Dec 2 14:34:08 CET 2021
I think you're extrapolating from your particular use case.
I would say most people use $0 for private variables/resources. In this
case the very point is that those are not accessible from outside. If I
do want to make things accessible from the outside, I wouldn't use $0 in
the first place...
On 02.12.2021 14:25, Antoine Rousseau wrote:
>
> Without the "$$" syntax, I wouldn't see the problem...
>
>
> encouraging the use of $0 in messages, without allowing to easily
> substitute with [another way to identify the abstraction] $1?..
>
>
>
> Le jeu. 2 déc. 2021 à 13:18, Christof Ressi <info at christofressi.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> So I think it's better to keep the $0/$n symmetry.
>>
>> I think having a "message" object is a better idea [than $$'s
>> one]
>>
>>
>> What I like with the $$ idea, is that it would provide a simple
>> way to merge creation arguments with variable arguments, i.e
>> compose a message with both the abstraction arguments and the
>> incoming message elements.
>
> I have to say I quite like the "$$" idea as well, assuming that we
> can take the risk of breaking a few patches (if any).
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to add a new object just for this
> functionality. For me this would create unnecessary complexity
> (you have to learn yet another object).
>
>> I'm not sure either. To me, both $0 and $1 etc. can be used to
>> identify an instance of an abstraction.
>> IMO $0 is the quick way, but has the limitation to make it
>> (nearly) impossible to access members from the outside.
>> That's why it often happened to me to rename an instance [myAbs]
>> to e.g [myAbs myabs1], then to replace $0 in [myAbs] with $1, so
>> I can easily access [myAbs]'s members from the parent - from
>> anywhere in fact (Actually, nowadays I tend to use as few $0 as
>> possible).
>> If we could use $0 in messages, then the last operation would be
>> more complicated (cause you couldn't simply substitute $0 with
>> e.g $1).
>
> I agree that if we get the "$$" syntax, then it makes more sense
> to use "$$0" for the $0 argument! Without the "$$" syntax, I
> wouldn't see the problem...
>
> One downside of using "$$0" is that it wouldn't be compatible with
> Pd-L2Ork / PurrData.If they have already diverged significantly,
> we probably don't have to care, but otherwise...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20211202/a670d3aa/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list