If you would like to test if $0 works inside messages as originally suggested by Alexandre, you can try pd-l2ork. This is what it has been using for quite some time now, although the use cases of $0 inside a message remain relatively sparse. Another consideration is that there is a bit of a CPU overhead in dynamically allowing $0 to be expanded.
Best, Ico -- Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A. Director, Creativity + Innovation Director, Human-Centered Design iPhD Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology Virginia Tech Creative Technologies in Music School of Performing Arts – 0141 Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-6139 [email protected] ci.icat.vt.edu l2ork.icat.vt.edu ico.bukvic.net On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 8:34 AM Christof Ressi <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you're extrapolating from your particular use case. > > I would say most people use $0 for private variables/resources. In this > case the very point is that those are not accessible from outside. If I do > want to make things accessible from the outside, I wouldn't use $0 in the > first place... > On 02.12.2021 14:25, Antoine Rousseau wrote: > > Without the "$$" syntax, I wouldn't see the problem... > > > encouraging the use of $0 in messages, without allowing to easily > substitute with [another way to identify the abstraction] $1?.. > > > > Le jeu. 2 déc. 2021 à 13:18, Christof Ressi <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> So I think it's better to keep the $0/$n symmetry. >> >> I think having a "message" object is a better idea [than $$'s one] >>> >> >> What I like with the $$ idea, is that it would provide a simple way to >> merge creation arguments with variable arguments, i.e compose a message >> with both the abstraction arguments and the incoming message elements. >> >> I have to say I quite like the "$$" idea as well, assuming that we can >> take the risk of breaking a few patches (if any). >> >> I don't think it's a good idea to add a new object just for this >> functionality. For me this would create unnecessary complexity (you have to >> learn yet another object). >> >> I'm not sure either. To me, both $0 and $1 etc. can be used to identify >> an instance of an abstraction. >> IMO $0 is the quick way, but has the limitation to make it (nearly) >> impossible to access members from the outside. >> That's why it often happened to me to rename an instance [myAbs] to e.g >> [myAbs myabs1], then to replace $0 in [myAbs] with $1, so I can easily >> access [myAbs]'s members from the parent - from anywhere in fact (Actually, >> nowadays I tend to use as few $0 as possible). >> If we could use $0 in messages, then the last operation would be more >> complicated (cause you couldn't simply substitute $0 with e.g $1). >> >> I agree that if we get the "$$" syntax, then it makes more sense to use >> "$$0" for the $0 argument! Without the "$$" syntax, I wouldn't see the >> problem... >> >> One downside of using "$$0" is that it wouldn't be compatible with >> Pd-L2Ork / PurrData.If they have already diverged significantly, we >> probably don't have to care, but otherwise... >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
