Em qui., 2 de dez. de 2021 às 13:19, Ico Bukvic escreveu:
> although the use cases of $0 inside a message remain relatively sparse.
>
I say it's very common. Whenever we need "$0" for a send name, a table name
or using messages as sends ;)
it is quite common to see [f $0] going into "$1" in
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
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
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
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
I don't think that's really useful. I think it's really bug that message
boxes accept "anything" messages and I would opt for removing it:
https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/1491 (I remember I had
brought this issue up somewhere, but apparantly didn't open a ticket on
GitHub until
>
> - *$0 is not a creation argument after all, i.e. it is not part of
> "ce_argv".*
I don't know... Can't we consider $0 as an "unconditional" creation
argument?...
* Also, it really **has a different purpose. (...) $0 would be a special
> case either way.*
>
I'm not sure either. To me, both
Imo it still seems to me that $0 in message boxes should get the selector since
$1 etc. in message boxes are positional elements in messages at "msg-passing
time" and $1 etc. are positional elements (arguments) in objects at load-time.
- seb
Sent from the all new AOL app for
Em qua., 1 de dez. de 2021 às 17:44, Miller Puckette via Pd-list <
pd-list@lists.iem.at> escreveu:
> I think having a "message" object is a better idea. Only thing is, it
> does raise some interesting design questions of its own - like, what of
> sending more than one message; how to specify
I think having a "message" object is a better idea. Only thing is, it
does raise some interesting design questions of its own - like, what of
sending more than one message; how to specify destination names without
using the ';' separator, and what if we allowed expressions ...
cheers
Miller
On
what if we introduce double dollar syntax to grab patch arguments?
Actually, I already thought about that. The problem is that "$" is only
interpreted as a dollar or dollarsym if it is followed by a number. So
currently "$$" is not a reserved token, meaning that "$$" is a valid
symbol. We
I like the idea.
Em qua., 1 de dez. de 2021 às 17:14, José de Abreu
escreveu:
> I have an idea about $0
>
> what if we introduce double dollar syntax to grab patch arguments? and
> then inside messages $$1 would be first abstraction argument, while $1 is
> the the first element of the list (as
I have an idea about $0
what if we introduce double dollar syntax to grab patch arguments? and then
inside messages $$1 would be first abstraction argument, while $1 is the
the first element of the list (as it already is)
this way, $$0 in a message would be what $0 is for an object, $$1 would be
13 matches
Mail list logo
