[PD] '$0' in messages again, another proposal? (Was: Pd 0.52 test 2 is out)

Ico Bukvic ico at vt.edu
Thu Dec 2 17:10:42 CET 2021

If you would like to test if $0 works inside messages as originally
suggested by Alexandre, you can try pd-l2ork. This is what it has been
using for quite some time now, although the use cases of $0 inside a
message remain relatively sparse. Another consideration is that there is a
bit of a CPU overhead in dynamically allowing $0 to be expanded.



Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
Director, Creativity + Innovation
Director, Human-Centered Design iPhD
Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology

Virginia Tech
Creative Technologies in Music
School of Performing Arts – 0141
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-6139
ico at vt.edu


On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 8:34 AM Christof Ressi <info at christofressi.com>

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211202/68af818c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list