On Jan 15, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Tim Blechmann wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:24:06 +0100 IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
personally i have to admit, that i don't have problems with $ in objects and $ in messages. for me it really emphasizes the difference between a message (an event; only exists _now_; no knowledge of its environment) and an object (a process (a storage); persistant; ...)
well, i distinguishing # and $ for messages / objects would increase the expressive power of the language pd, since two different language features are expressed differently ...
I don't see how adding # variables would give you anything but a shortcut. I don't think it would give you anything that you can't do currently with Pd. Do you have any examples?
reusing keywords for different features makes a language lot easier to read / understand ... just compare with the different semantic of the keyword 'static' in c++ ...
The C/C++ static keyword is bad yes, but Pd's $ args are much simpler. $ args are variables that are replaced on instantiation. Messages are instantiated at a different time than objects, hence the confusion. But the definition of Pd's $ args is quite simple.
.hc
just my 1.5707963ยข ... tim
-- mailto:TimBlechmann@gmx.de ICQ: 96771783 http://www.mokabar.tk
Which is more musical, a truck passing by a factory or a truck passing by a music school? John Cage _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
________________________________________________________________________ ____
"Looking at things from a more basic level, you can come up with a more direct solution... It may sound small in theory, but it in practice, it can change entire economies." - Amy Smith