Am 13.11.09 01:31 schrieb "Phil Stone" unter <[email protected]>: > Mathieu Bouchard wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Frank Barknecht wrote: >>> Alexandre Porres hat gesagt: // Alexandre Porres wrote: >>>> But I totally disagree, I have been teaching a lot basic Pd around, and >>>> people always get confused and think they can just throw "$0" in >>>> messages. >>> That may be because your students assume, that $1 in a message box is >>> the same >>> as $1 in an object box when in fact it's something different. >> >> That may be because you assume that objectboxes' $0 must have >> something to do with $1,$2,$3,... when in fact it's something different. >> >> $3 stands for ce_argv[2] >> $2 stands for ce_argv[1] >> $1 stands for ce_argv[0] >> $0 stands for ce_dollarzero >> >> it's a special case no matter what. > > Right. Which neatly brings the question back around to "why can't $0 be > used in message boxes?" I've said this before (to no avail): it is well > understood that $0 has no meaning in *messages* -- however, this is not > a good reason why $0 can't be used in *message boxes.* > > Since "1024-foo" (where "1024" represents the canvas-identifier), *does* > have meaning in messages, why must we jump through (admittedly minor, > but still quite annoying) hoops just to get that canvas-identifier into > a message? > > It probably belongs in the "some things will never change in Pd" > category; therefore we must resign ourselves to this discussion > re-appearing on a regular basis. $0 in messages is only special in the sense, that it has no meaning at all. it wouldn't make it less special to use it as a container for canvas identifier in message boxes. $-variables in objects have a different meaning from $-variables in message boxes, no matter what. I understand, that it would make patching often a lot easier, but conceptually it would be exceptional to make $0 in message-boxes be replaced by the canvas-identifier, while all other $n-variables in message-boxes get replaced by the n-th element of the incoming list. I wouldn't want to have to pay attention to n in $n in order to determine its behaviour. And i also don't support a change that would introduce an inconsistency like that. Why don't people fight with the same effort to make $1 in message boxes be replaced by the first argument of the patch? Personally, i find it 'unecological' to just not use $0 at all in message boxes. I am haven't checked, but i think this idea must have been brought up already: Let's make $0 in message boxes be replaced by the selector of the incoming messages. Currently, it is quite cumbersome to type check a pd message and it requires a lot of patching. Using $0 to get the '0th' element of the incoming message would be consistent with the way $-variables are currently used in message boxes and it would be tremendously useful. Just to illustrate the proposed use of $0: the incoming message: the respective $0 'hallo velo' 'hallo' 'list mein fahrrad' 'list' 'symbol bike' 'symbol' '12 twentyfour' 'list' '12' 'float' 'bang' 'bang' 'bla' 'bla' If this could be implemented, any future discussion about why $0 in message boxes is not replaced by the canvas identifier would be lapsed. roman ___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
