Hi Ico,
I already made my own PR a few years ago:
https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/347
Another consideration is that there is a bit of a CPU overhead in
dynamically allowing $0 to be expanded.
AFAICT, my implementation actually *saves* a little bit of CPU because I
cache the $0 value once in the message box constructor and then pass it
explicitly to the new binbuf_doeval() function.
the current message box implementation calls binbuf_eval() which would
query the $0 every single time (and we don't even use it :-)
Christof
On 02.12.2021 17:10, Ico Bukvic wrote:
If you would like to test if $0 works inside messages as originally
suggested by Alexandre, you can try pd-l2ork. This is what it has been
using for quite some time now, although the use cases of $0 inside a
message remain relatively sparse. Another consideration is that there
is a bit of a CPU overhead in dynamically allowing $0 to be expanded.
Best,
Ico
--
Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
Director, Creativity + Innovation
Director, Human-Centered Design iPhD
Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology
Virginia Tech
Creative Technologies in Music
School of Performing Arts – 0141
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-6139
i...@vt.edu
ci.icat.vt.edu <http://ci.icat.vt.edu>
l2ork.icat.vt.edu <http://l2ork.icat.vt.edu>
ico.bukvic.net <http://ico.bukvic.net>
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 8:34 AM Christof Ressi <i...@christofressi.com>
wrote:
I think you're extrapolating from your particular use case.
I would say most people use $0 for private variables/resources. In
this case the very point is that those are not accessible from
outside. If I do want to make things accessible from the outside,
I wouldn't use $0 in the first place...
On 02.12.2021 14:25, Antoine Rousseau wrote:
Without the "$$" syntax, I wouldn't see the problem...
encouraging the use of $0 in messages, without allowing to easily
substitute with [another way to identify the abstraction] $1?..
Le jeu. 2 déc. 2021 à 13:18, Christof Ressi
<i...@christofressi.com> a écrit :
So I think it's better to keep the $0/$n symmetry.
I think having a "message" object is a better idea [than
$$'s one]
What I like with the $$ idea, is that it would provide a
simple way to merge creation arguments with variable
arguments, i.e compose a message with both the abstraction
arguments and the incoming message elements.
I have to say I quite like the "$$" idea as well, assuming
that we can take the risk of breaking a few patches (if any).
I don't think it's a good idea to add a new object just for
this functionality. For me this would create unnecessary
complexity (you have to learn yet another object).
I'm not sure either. To me, both $0 and $1 etc. can be used
to identify an instance of an abstraction.
IMO $0 is the quick way, but has the limitation to make it
(nearly) impossible to access members from the outside.
That's why it often happened to me to rename an instance
[myAbs] to e.g [myAbs myabs1], then to replace $0 in [myAbs]
with $1, so I can easily access [myAbs]'s members from the
parent - from anywhere in fact (Actually, nowadays I tend to
use as few $0 as possible).
If we could use $0 in messages, then the last operation
would be more complicated (cause you couldn't simply
substitute $0 with e.g $1).
I agree that if we get the "$$" syntax, then it makes more
sense to use "$$0" for the $0 argument! Without the "$$"
syntax, I wouldn't see the problem...
One downside of using "$$0" is that it wouldn't be compatible
with Pd-L2Ork / PurrData.If they have already diverged
significantly, we probably don't have to care, but otherwise...
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
