On 09/10/2014 08:21 PM, Miller Puckette wrote: > > The recursion problem (that Ico asked about) is this... if a message box > has to set the "cuttent" canvas to itself, so that its messages can access > $0, and if its message leads to another message box in another canvas, that > second message box can't just bash the value of "current canvas" but rather > would have to save the previous one (and restore it when done) so that, when > control returns to the first message box, any further messages it wishes to > send get its own $0 and not the bashed one.
i have heard rumours about an abomination named "stack". > > A deeper question bothers me: what about $1, etc, too? What if we're in an > abstraction and want to 'speak' to $0 in our calling patch? THe usual way of > doing that is for the calling patch to instantiate the abstraction with $0 > as an argument. Then the abstraction itself can access it as, say, $1. But > that makes me think we need a way for the message box to be able to access $1 > as well as $0. this is not a problem of the msgbox, but about locality. $0 is currently the only way to implement such a thing - albeit in a crude way. your example clearly shows that $0 is a not very elegant for these kind of problems. (whether in msgboxes or normal objboxes) > > Should there be a 'generalized' message box that doesn't use binbuf_eval > at all but rather gets a more spohisticated interpreter? FTM msgbox? > > Yet another possible direction: the new "text" object could be given a way to > access the contents of message boxes, so that people could write their > own semantics any way they please. but [text] still has the limitations of the binbux: e.g. no whitespace is preserved, semicolons and commas are special... > Hmm, time for another Pd convention :) now that is a conclusion! gfmsr IOhannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
