On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 06:37:58PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote: > > >for messages and objects as in Max? (Personally I prefer that both > >messages and object boxes use a dollarsign for simplicity, but I also > >know from teaching workshops, that many "newbies" get confused by > >this. But then, they also confuse the difference between subpatches > >and abstractions ... it goes away with time.) > > Simplicity of the language gets balanced by complexity of what you write > in it. It is not a zero-sum game: a little less complexity in the language > means a lot more complexity in the patches. In the end, it's a loss. > > Unlike the difference between subpatches and abstractions, at least part > of the complexity of not having abstraction $ in messageboxes does not go > away with time. It makes clumps around messageboxes and they stick around > there because they are necessary to compensate for a lack of complexity in > pd.
My 2 Zimbabwe dollars: I agree that there is no nice reason for those clumps, and one more inconsistency in Pd would do more good than bad in this case. I would say making $0 do the same thing in message boxes and abstraction arguments would overall save time for users and only add a very small amount of easily-explainable complication. Best, Chris. ------------------- http://mccormick.cx _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list