instead of @ # ? we could also use a prefix like "this.": this.$0, this.$1, this.$2 for messages. just a suggestion. m.
marius schebella wrote: > Mathieu Bouchard wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: >>> Frank Barknecht wrote: >>>> reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $ in >>>> messages to # >>> no, I was talking about changing the sign for creation arguments! >>> for reasons of backwards compatibitily. >> >> For reasons of backwards compatibility you'd keep $- the same because >> if you write $- it currently stays $- ... if you are going to >> selectively drop compatibility, you ought to explain why and how, e.g. >> "because $- is rarer than #" ... > > in old patches you have > $1 $2 $3 in messages > and $0 $1 $2 in objects > presumtion: you don't just simply want to add $0-feature to messages > simply because it would be inconsequent, or difficult to understand for > newbies... > therefor you want to differentiate between creation and message > arguments. giving one of them a new appearance, but still making old > patches work. > case 1 (bad): > you have > $0 $1 #1 $2 #2 $3 #3 in messages > and $0 $1 $2 $3 in objects. > (that's bad because, then u still have the confusion of $0 and $- in > messages, exactly what you did not want > case 2 (better): > you have > #0 #1 #2 #3 #4 $1 $2 $3 $4 in messages (all meaning different things) > and $0 or #0, $1 or #1, $2 or #2 in objects. (#- the new style, but for > backwards compatibilty still allowing the old $- style) > hope this is clear enough. > marius. > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
