Hi, the problem is, that $1 (and $<) has a different behaviour in objects and in messages. I think that was taken as reason, not to make $0 having the same behaviour in messages, but giving it no behaviour at all and also no alternative solution. but maybe there is another motivation I have not taken into consideration. and I am also not able to implement any of the discussed possibilities. I am just trying to find a lobby for either solution.
marius Patrice Colet wrote: > You know what, all along the hundreds of lines I've been reading in the > list about $0, I don't get a single consistent reason why it hasn't the > same behavior in object and message boxes. > > Matteo Sisti Sette a écrit : >> Mathieu Bouchard wrote >> (and a few other people wrote something similar): >> >>> $0 in objectboxes is already inconsistent with $1,$2,$3,... in >>> objectboxes, so, it's not clear that $0 in messagebox has to be >>> consistent >>> with anything at all. >> >> >> $0 is inconsistent with $1, $2 etc strictly speaking, but you may >> think of $0 as of an "implicit creation argument". The name $0 has the >> same scope of the names $1,$2, in the sense that: in any two places >> where two $0's would have the same value, two $1's would have the same >> value. Both are values that are generated at the time of creating the >> object (semantically I mean, I don't know if it is so in >> implementation and it is irrelevant) and don't change later. >> So it is not *so* inconsistent. >> >> Making $0 mean in a message the same it means in an object box, would >> make it *a lot* more inconsistent with $1,$2 in messages than $0 is >> with $1,$2 in object boxes. >> $1,$2... in messages are evaluated at the time the message box >> receives its input and generates its output; they are arguments of the >> message it receives. The "natural" object-counterpart of $0 would be a >> number that is unique to that particular message event (not message >> box) or message tree, though that would be of little or no use..... or >> wouldn't it? >> >> Also, consider the following goal: >> (*) give direct access to (implicit and explicit) creation arguments >> ($n) of the patch within a message >> >> Making $0 mean the same in a message box than outside it would address >> goal (*) only for the particular case of $0 and not for n>0, and I >> personally think this isn't an elegant approach. >> Also, any future attempt to address (*) for n>0, would probably result >> more difficult or have to be more inconsistend if the $0 case has been >> treated this way. >> >> >> I am personally strongly against implementing $0 in messages meaning >> the same as $0 outside them. It would introduce further inconsistence. >> If there actually is some inconsistence now, it is not a good reason >> imho to deliberately introduce more inconsistence. >> >> >> -- >> Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f >> >> Sponsor: >> >> Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6905&d=17-8 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
