IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Phil Stone wrote:
I think the fact that this is an eternally-recurring topic points to
just how irritating this one little foible of Pd is -- it's confusing to
newbies,
i agree
and it's annoying to more experienced programmers.
but i can't follow here .-)
Well, I'm annoyed. :-) But I think I'll get over it.
But $0 is exceptional in *all* cases! Its use in objects has a very
different meaning than the use of $1, $2.... in objects. Yet no one
calls for eliminating $0 from object boxes -- why is the same argument
actually i do.
obviously it would break everything, so i won't say that loud.
<snip>
as explained lengthily months ago, i still don't think that messages
should have any notion of the surrounding patch.
I'd be interested in reading that, though I haven't been able to find
the post yet. Do you have a reference?
Currently, the only time I've needed to get $0 into a message is for
dynamic patching. Since this practice is an unloved bastard child of
Pd, it's unlikely I'll get anywhere advocating for making it easier.
Nevertheless, the less-readable patches (as if dynamic patches aren't
obscure enough!) that result from the contortions needed to get $0 into
the message annoy me, and tempt me to write bad, name-clash-ripe dynamic
objects.
Best,
Phil
http://www.pkstonemusic.com/pubmusic.html
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
