I'd say this is a "paper cut." It's a small issue easily worked around by the addition of an extra step, but that extra step is painful due to it's repetition. Also, I've seen it be a confusing step for many beginners once they learn to use $0 in objects, ie [f $0], [symbol $0], etc.
I'm on the side of $0 in message boxes. I don't see how this change would break anything since $0 currently resolves to 0 (I think), and I cannot imagine anyone relying on this. Is it a controversy? > On Sep 4, 2018, at 9:41 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 21:02:39 -0700 > From: Miller Puckette <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > To: Alexandre Torres Porres <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: Henri Augusto Bisognini <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, pd-dev > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49? > Message-ID: <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > This one is mired in controversy. Meanwhile, you can get "$0" functionality > in a message box by preceeding it with "list prepend $0" so that $1 in the > message box is teh patch's $0 and the other $ arguments are renumbered by one. > > cheers > Miller -------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
