Thomas Grill wrote:
do you mean, is there a reason for my patch, a reason for $0 or a reason for $0 being "different" in messages?
the latter (your patch is great, although i'd like to have even more
well i think this is very consistent: $args in messages refer _only_ to parameters of incoming messages, while $args in objects refer only to parameters of upstream objects. (and $0 is bound to the class instance)
however, i think that "$0" is a bad name. i would have liked it better if $0 was the selector (in messages) and the classname (in abstractions). probably "$$" would have been better for a uniq id (well, i know that this is a bashism (its the process-id in bash), but that is not necessarily bad)
flexible $args-processing).
this is on my todo-list. 1st thing todo (soon!) is to remove the restriction that dollsyms have to start with $ (while this restriction makes parsing trivial it is cumbersome at the best) 2nd thing todo (LATER!) is a mechanism for stacked $args, like ${$1-2}
Sorry for continuing in your thread.
better in this thread than never...
mfmgasdr IOhannes