Alexandre Porres wrote: > IOhannes: >> as for $$ being available in messages: i don't think >> this can easily be done the way things are right know. >> and really, i don't think it is that important :-) > > come back to my former inquiry, I am sorry if you told me this already and i > lost it. But then; > > - Do you think $0 could easily be available in messages? How come?
i say "i don't think this can easily be done". this i mean, not the opposite. i come to the conclusion because i read the code (that was years ago, i might be mistaken so please forgive me if its plain wrong): you need a context to evaluate $0 correctly. a message does not have this canvas-context. (this might really be total nonsense; but this is what i seem to remember) i _think_ that it makes sense to see it as such: objects are citizens of a canvas, messages are something entirely different. they are information passed between the citizens. they are not 2nd class citizens, they belong to another realm! once you got that, everything is simple :-) > - Is it a general consensuous that it aint't worth bothering about? Why? i don't think its general consensus. it's what _i_ think. i don't need $0 in message-boxes so often. i need to construct messages containing $0 for dynamic patching every now and then. but usually the messages i construct are more complex anyhow, so i don't use message-boxes to construct the values but [pack]. e.g. [pack 0 $0] | [obj 100 $1 fluffy $2( | [s pd-$0-patch] in this case, the penalty of not being able to write $0 in message boxes is minimal. keep in mind that this example is somewhat simplistic as well. usually the messages created contain a lot more arguments (>>4) , making the penalty even smaller. fgmadsr IOhannes _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list