While definitely understanding your irritation, the only point of your writing i was able to find is that it would make it 'easier'.
I definitely cannot support the idea of making one special case (that arises a lot, i admit) easier, while disregarding completely the concepts and consistency. Luckily, i don't have make this decision. However, i still think $0 in message boxes should expand to the selector of the incoming message. roman On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 08:54 -0800, Phil Stone wrote: > Roman Haefeli wrote: > > This is obviously a loop. All this has been said and proposed before in the > > thread [1], that has been posted by alex porres a few posts back. Sorry for > > not having brought any new perspectives into the discussion, but having just > > repeated what has been said already. > > > > Hi Roman, > > > I think the fact that this is an eternally-recurring topic points to > just how irritating this one little foible of Pd is -- it's confusing to > newbies, and it's annoying to more experienced programmers. > > > I want to address the point you brought up in the first message: > > > $0 in messages is only special in the sense, that it has no meaning at all. > > it wouldn't make it less special to use it as a container for canvas > > identifier in message boxes. $-variables in objects have a different meaning > > from $-variables in message boxes, no matter what. I understand, that it > > would make patching often a lot easier, but conceptually it would be > > exceptional to make $0 in message-boxes be replaced by the > > canvas-identifier, while all other $n-variables in message-boxes get > > replaced by the n-th element of the incoming list. > > But $0 is exceptional in *all* cases! Its use in objects has a very > different meaning than the use of $1, $2.... in objects. Yet no one > calls for eliminating $0 from object boxes -- why is the same argument > repeated over and over as justification for its prohibition in message > boxes? I just don't understand this. > > > If only (as many have said) "$0" had been written as "#0" or something > else completely un-encumbered with ideas about what "$" must mean in Pd. > > > > The only thing i don't really get: Why seems there some agreement, that > > using $0 to get the selector could be confusing? > > > Well, I think that would make things even worse - further muddying the > waters, as it were, by adding yet another meaning to the dollar-sign. I > don't see it as any more consistent or "pure", given the unique role > that $0 has in *all* cases. > > > When all is said and done, things in the Pd world will go on as they > have, and we won't really suffer because of this one little grain of > sand in our shell. But we probably will continue to discuss it every > few months! > > > Best, > > Phil > http://www.pkstonemusic.com/pubmusic.html > > _______________________________________________ > 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