On Jul 25, 2005, at 8:23 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Guenter Geiger hat gesagt: // Guenter Geiger wrote:
Let me explain: In order to convert lists to messages I normally use message boxes with $ arguments. E.g if I send a list "foo 2" to [set $1 $2( it will construct a message that reads [set foo 2(, similar with a 3 element list and $1,$2,$3. Now, my proposal is to introduce a $@ dollar symbol which accepts lists of any length, this way it is not necessary to know the length of a list before converting it into a message.
However with the new list processing objects the need to to use something like $@ will show up much less often because [list prepend set]---[list trim] would be the same as [set $@( in almost every case. The only exception I can think of currently are "send"-messages, i.e. those starting with ";". Still I agree, that $@ would be a useful feature, let alone to save some typing: [set $@( is much shorter than [set $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $12 $13 $14 $15 $16 $17 $18(
But [set $@( and [set $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $12 $13 $14 $15 $16 $17 $18( would produce different results since the message's unused dollar args would be initialized to 0.
[one two three( | [set $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $12 $13 $14 $15 $16 $17 $18( | [one two three 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(
While $@ should do this:
[one two three( | [set $@( | [one two three(
.hc
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
_ __latest track: "plak" @ http://footils.org/cms/show/44
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
________________________________________________________________________ ____
"The arc of history bends towards justice." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.