Frank Barknecht wrote: > I see a third option: $0 is not only different from the $-variables in > message boxes, but it's also different from the $-variables used as > object arguments.[1] So another way out would be to replace only "$0" > with something like "#0".
Yes. This, at least, would end the irrelevant "dollar sign variables in message boxes are different than abstraction initializers" argument every time someone asks why $0 can't be used in a message box. :-) Also, it would be much less confusing in general, because $0 never means the same thing as $1...$n, inside *or* outside of message boxes. > Of course beginners then still would like to > use #0 in a message box. > I'm not a beginner (though far from an expert), and I still want to use the unique identifier in message boxes. What, exactly, is wrong with that use case? Frank, I think you make quite a bit of use of $0 in messages in [memento], for example. If it's wrong, why does the idiom; [f $0]-[message $1( get suggested as a solution so often? In my opinion, that's just a kludge, avoiding the original problem. Looking back on the thread, I see this from Iohannes: > $-args in message-boxes are a way to modify messages. > since messages don't have a patch-context, neither have (their > patchable instances) message-boxes. But the message-boxes *do* have a patch context; they live in an abstraction that has a unique identifier, which is sometimes useful to blend into a message. I'm sorry for being stubborn about this, but I still don't see Georg's basic question answered, just a lot of dancing around it. :-) Phil _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
