-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2013-10-07 03:13, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote: >>>> and as such it seems logical that a msg should retain its >>>> last known > state, >>> no. that's totally unrelated to being consistent. >>> >>> so that when receiving a bang it would output its last stored >>> values. >>> >>> why? i think the current behaviour is very consistent though >>> probably less convenient than some would like to have it. > > ...how is [$1] retains value and [msg] doesn't (except it does > anything other than $n) consistent?
[$1] does not retain it's value. [$1] gets evaluated at instantation time, and it could evaluate to [print] in one patch and to [netreceive] in another patch. if you have an abstraction "foo" containing [blu $1 $2] and you call it once as [foo 10 20] and once as [foo 3], the latter will not have a [blu 3 20]. [*] the only thing that [$1] retains is, that it will evaluate to the first argument of the patch. msgboxes (assuming this is what you mean by [msg]) retain their meaning in the same way: [$1( will always evaluate to the first list-element of the incoming message. >> >> As you said, it's consistent in terms of having been Pd's >> dollarsign behavior "forever". Outside of that specific type of >> consistency across time-- > i.e., >> backwards compatibility-- I see no valid argument that either way >> is > "more" >> consistent. Both approaches are self-consistent. They >> (presumably) work exactly the same regardless of the context in >> which they get used in a particular patch. i cannot recally having said that one of the two approaches is not consistent. i only argued that the current behaviour already is consistent (and thus consistency is a bad reason to change it) > > Then, there are those situations where properly formed message is > passed through the msg object with no reported errors but is still > malformed according to the receiving object below msg. An error is > thrown by the receiving object but one has no way of recreating and > studying the offending message... do you have examples for that? > > Another thought is that just like [$1] retains last data value > during runtime, shouldn't [msg] too? After all [msg] retains the > rest of the list inside it not only during runtime but also during > save, so why would not it retain its last data during runtime? see above (and please clarify what the [msg] object is) fgmasdr IOhannes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSUmU6AAoJELZQGcR/ejb4THgP/0cf3rsNKo2rIDb2jNj05LrE r1sftt9zsPdpv32CZIuH75MY8/hwZOBGGQNAzbnjscIV8/RDn7kG+Rm1d6pSa8a1 m8Ad4tsdIS0k/eJEJWkPb7Sg6lJ5AUzSdwZJhaRmbAj4dL5NomMFQF9Q4slsZntJ Qk6HJY4d65gphtQEXZuUk5wF6HRcFo472S6KtH//piNU7vxyfSgGv8vlz9zZsnDC S3d7Ji7xPDAhpo+3DQ0fubsvqIKN9iyyYI732d7aYmbcQMlNLOUBV4bUZmdCBCr+ yaAUEy2dB+vp8KgghNQCTJmV8qbZgNA8JJVRoFUGyx7TDEN2Cu6ov2WlLiI5D46O RNozIVN2I+un03yiTLFx7nRLiixGy2zkLnrICwpnblS/d68vLrsFkGhSrc5nryDu L98gML8GYNtiOIot3OrmQLSa25XlO7KxTPgcbv5X6geiBdjUz34gPm/iQDwFvx9E jdlofkuwKXlryKyQeddXvuLOFG97Hyg8D9jUtx2sFKQRRhXTrWvvaxEKNkxjGJMo 0v0IrvTZYJo9DZZ1ORW5UVCAkiXkVG90t9nsjglzmmPdGsV3Czxi6LVcAJuhmFHd xNR6t6RYMqhK7bQJQKhboDD9s+/S8OLeAukly4fioSV38dSub6kv5W0NVLbnEIGW JnGODiERTu9JY8/xhmDe =zfjX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list