http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2004-12/003428.html
Essentially, being able to send a message to the current canvas in vanilla-pd without naming it, "this" in the current context is similar to the Java concept of "this". If Miller wants to remove [namecanvas], just give us a "this" expression! What about $! ? ~Brandon On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Mathieu Bouchard <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > > iirc, the reason for obsoleting [namecanvas] is that it allows the dynamic >> patching engine to get into an inconsistent (probably crashing) state (true, >> there are other things that allow this as well, without getting obsoleted). >> > > Especially, you can crash pd using the thing that is supposed to be > replacing namecanvas, using a total of 3 objects. So, the reason for > obsoleting [namecanvas] is bogus. Here's an attachment for demonstrating > that. > > > anyhow, [namecanvas] has no concept of "this" either. >> > > What's a concept of "this", to you ? It seems that we don't agree on > this... we're not using the same vocabulary. > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > | Mathieu Bouchard ------------------------------ Villeray, Montréal, QC > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
