hmm, I am sorry, I don't think I got what you meant... could you give an example please?
The way I see is that $1...$n are related to the inheritance concept. They could be used inside [send~] & [receive~] objects to force some sort of locality, but you can't really guarantee locality by that, it is just some way around that is not 100% safe, cause if you have [s $1-gain] in an abstraction, and $1 inheriting "A" for instance, a [s A-gain] object in a parent patch (or even on another opened patch) would still get the value globally. cheers alex On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Matt Barber <brbrof...@gmail.com> wrote: > Without $0, one would have to use $1 ... $n for locality. $0 of a > parent patch often needs to be passed as $1 to a child for proper > locality, for instance, so I don't think they are necessarily THAT > different conceptually. > > Matt > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Alexandre Porres <por...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Calling this an exception creates > >> the impression, that $1 in a message > >> is the same as in an object. > > Hmm, I see you have a point! But I am just used to consider "$0" and "$1, > $2 > > ... $n" different/separate things, being "$0" solely a locality sintax. > > Putting them as separate concepts I see "$1, $2 ... $n" as two different > > things wether in messages or objects, and that "$0" is just useless in > > messages. > > Anyway, I am cool with what needs to be done in order to put "$0" in > > messages, I still think it's a bit of an unnecessary hassle, but it ain't > > that much of a big deal after all. > > The thing that had no other way around was using the Find feature to > > actually find them, so I thought about bringing this all up: the > hassle and > > the problem. > > I now see that uncheking "whole word" in the new version is just another > > "way around" rather than actually getting the Find feature to look for > "$0", > > or even for the window number once we explicitly tell it which one it is. > > So, nerverminding about "$0" in messages, I would still make a point here > > for the Find feature to be able to find "$0", I hope it isn't much hassle > > getting it to do so. > > Thanks a bunch folks! > > Cheers > > alex > > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Roman Haefeli <reduzie...@yahoo.de> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Am 12.11.09 17:21 schrieb "Alexandre Porres" unter <por...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> > 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. So > I > >> > have > >> > to state and reinforce that there is an exception that it doesn't work > >> > on > >> > messages. > >> > >> Calling this an exception creates the impression, that $1 in a message > >> is the same as in an object. > >> > >> > Without an exception at all, it should be easier to get it, as I > >> > understand. > >> > >> Agreed. But currently, the only thing that makes $0 in a message > >> exceptional > >> is the fact, that it has no meaning at all. Making it be replaced by the > >> canvas identifier wouldn't make it less exceptional at all. > >> > >> roman > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ___________________________________________________________ > >> Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: > >> http://mail.yahoo.de > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list