Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: I would give most priority to any kind of $0 feature in messages. and then the next step for me would be to differentiate between $-variables (in messages) and # or ? or @ variables in patches. that way you would not break backwards compatibility, What about patches that use # or ? or @ to mean something else already? By treating all character combinations to be valid unless otherwise used, Pd has painted itself in a corner about extending functionality. Anything new breaks some compatibility: you can only hope that a certain combination of characters is not already in use by actual patches, but you can't even know that. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote: 2) I guess it may imply some implementation difficulties, since in the patch file $'s are actually saved as #'s (indeed there's even a bug that if you open a slider/toggle's properties and it has a property with some $'s inside its name other than at the beginning, they will show as #, although they work properly) No, this is just a hack at the level of the property dialogs, not at the level of saving files. It's because of some superstition about backslashes. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote: I don't know how easy/difficult an implementation of new variable names would be. I would give most priority to any kind of $0 feature in messages. and then the next step for me would be to differentiate between $-variables (in messages) and # or ? or @ variables in patches. that way you would not break backwards compatibility, and a #0 or ?0 or @0 in a message or an object would behave like the old $0 var in objects. ATM I cannot think of a way, that introduces # as a substitute for $ in $1 ... messages, that would *not* break backwards compatibility: What if someone already used #1 in a message to mean just a literal #1? Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org_ __goto10.org__ ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
Mathieu Bouchard wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: I would give most priority to any kind of $0 feature in messages. and then the next step for me would be to differentiate between $-variables (in messages) and # or ? or @ variables in patches. that way you would not break backwards compatibility, What about patches that use # or ? or @ to mean something else already? By treating all character combinations to be valid unless otherwise used, Pd has painted itself in a corner about extending functionality. Anything new breaks some compatibility: you can only hope that a certain combination of characters is not already in use by actual patches, but you can't even know that. You are right, I thought it is unlikely that people use these characters often, but who knows. (maybe a search on the existing abstractions in the repository will give some clues.) even with a combination of charactars $$ ## #$ $# @@ ?? you can't be sure that they are not used before. but we have forums and lists, and I think that should be sufficiant to find a possible solution. marius. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: even with a combination of charactars $$ ## #$ $# @@ ?? you can't be sure that they are not used before. Right. For example, http://www.localarcade.com/arcade_art/data/thumbnails/2/q-bert.jpg _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
Mathieu Bouchard wrote: On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: even with a combination of charactars $$ ## #$ $# @@ ?? you can't be sure that they are not used before. Right. For example, http://www.localarcade.com/arcade_art/data/thumbnails/2/q-bert.jpg to make it more clear u can't be sure that they are not used before in pd patches, even exluding cases where people intentionally want to break patches. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
How does the 4 digit number get assigned to $0? I have always been curious about this. Kevin On 8/16/07, Matteo Sisti Sette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: marius schebella wrote: it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much! I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius. Yeah, and the very same happens when you use [send/receive $1-blabla] and you need to change it into a message box. I personally think it is a pitty that message boxes use $'s with a different meaning than objects; it would be far more elegant (in my opinion obviously) if message-arguments used a different symbol, and if the $n in a message box referred to the n-th argument of the patch, not the message; that would include $0. That's how max works (if I'm not confused), where I think # refers to patch creation arguments and $ refers to message arguments (though probably max doesn't have a #0, does it?) That's the ONLY one thing I like more in max than in PD... up to now. The only way of introducing such a facility without breaking backward-compatibility (or is it forward?), would be to introduce a third symbol, say @ (well it should be one that is currently not allowed in messages): @n if used inside a message, would refer to the $n of the patch (including @0), and outside a message box, i.e. in an object, it would be a synonim of $n. Is this nonsense? matteo -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Scegli ciò che stai cercando tra migliaia di annunci, prova con Email.it Annunci, l'inserzione è gratuita! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6891d=16-8 ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- http://pocketkm.blogspot.com ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
Matteo Sisti Sette wrote: The only way of introducing such a facility without breaking backward-compatibility (or is it forward?), would be to introduce a third symbol, say @ (well it should be one that is currently not allowed in messages): @n if used inside a message, would refer to the $n of the patch (including @0), and outside a message box, i.e. in an object, it would be a synonim of $n. yes, for compatibility it is only important, that old patches will still run on new versions, but new features don't have to be compatible with old versions of pd. why not use # as in max? @ is already used to access object attributes. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
the first appearance of $0 is substituted by 1000, the next with 1001 and so on. marius. Kevin McCoy wrote: How does the 4 digit number get assigned to $0? I have always been curious about this. Kevin On 8/16/07, Matteo Sisti Sette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: marius schebella wrote: it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much! I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius. Yeah, and the very same happens when you use [send/receive $1-blabla] and you need to change it into a message box. I personally think it is a pitty that message boxes use $'s with a different meaning than objects; it would be far more elegant (in my opinion obviously) if message-arguments used a different symbol, and if the $n in a message box referred to the n-th argument of the patch, not the message; that would include $0. That's how max works (if I'm not confused), where I think # refers to patch creation arguments and $ refers to message arguments (though probably max doesn't have a #0, does it?) That's the ONLY one thing I like more in max than in PD... up to now. The only way of introducing such a facility without breaking backward-compatibility (or is it forward?), would be to introduce a third symbol, say @ (well it should be one that is currently not allowed in messages): @n if used inside a message, would refer to the $n of the patch (including @0), and outside a message box, i.e. in an object, it would be a synonim of $n. Is this nonsense? matteo -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Scegli ciò che stai cercando tra migliaia di annunci, prova con Email.it Annunci, l'inserzione è gratuita! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6891d=16-8 ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
marius schebella wrote why not use # as in max? @ is already used to access object attributes. marius. # may be a good option, but: 1) It would not be as in max, it would be viceversa (max uses # for creation arguments and $ for message arguments) 2) I guess it may imply some implementation difficulties, since in the patch file $'s are actually saved as #'s (indeed there's even a bug that if you open a slider/toggle's properties and it has a property with some $'s inside its name other than at the beginning, they will show as #, although they work properly) I didn't know about object attributes in PD. I will search and learn about them before I ask anything :) bye m. -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Hai bisogno di contanti per realizzare i tuoi desideri? Prometeo ti propone prestiti da 1.500 a 31.000 Euro! Clicca qui per un preventivo immediato. Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6916d=17-8 ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
I don't know how easy/difficult an implementation of new variable names would be. I would give most priority to any kind of $0 feature in messages. and then the next step for me would be to differentiate between $-variables (in messages) and # or ? or @ variables in patches. that way you would not break backwards compatibility, and a #0 or ?0 or @0 in a message or an object would behave like the old $0 var in objects. additionally the $1-$10 types could still be used in objects to be able to load old patches. but instead you could also use #1-#10 or ?1-?10 or @[EMAIL PROTECTED] that would make less confusion and you could also easily use #, ?, @ in messages... the object attributes mentioned below appear in flext externals and are very useful. very! marius. Matteo Sisti Sette wrote: marius schebella wrote why not use # as in max? @ is already used to access object attributes. marius. # may be a good option, but: 1) It would not be as in max, it would be viceversa (max uses # for creation arguments and $ for message arguments) 2) I guess it may imply some implementation difficulties, since in the patch file $'s are actually saved as #'s (indeed there's even a bug that if you open a slider/toggle's properties and it has a property with some $'s inside its name other than at the beginning, they will show as #, although they work properly) I didn't know about object attributes in PD. I will search and learn about them before I ask anything :) bye m. -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Hai bisogno di contanti per realizzare i tuoi desideri? Prometeo ti propone prestiti da 1.500 a 31.000 Euro! Clicca qui per un preventivo immediato. Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6916d=17-8 ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Kevin McCoy wrote: How does the 4 digit number get assigned to $0? I have always been curious about this. It's a special case in the program. It comes from the canvas environment, which exists for every non-subpatch canvas. Every such canvas gets a new number. it starts at 1000 and every new canvas gets a new number. It can be more than 4 digits. You can go up to 100 before it breaks A_DOLLSYM (dollar-in-symbol) and up to 16777216 in A_DOLLAR (standalone dollar). Adding more RAM or going to 64-bit mode does not raise those limits. Outside of pd, you can have much bigger numbers assigned to $0. For example, if you have a bill of 500,000,000,000 yugoslav dinars (http://images.goantiques.com/dbimages/UYR9212/UYR9212yd500.jpg), you can rest assured that it has the same value as $0. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
