Miller et al,
The current code suggests that this should happen (binbuf_eval calls the appropriate function), but since canvas_setcurrent is never called, it fails and returns 0.
Yet, I wonder why message shouldn't be able to pre-parse $0 into a valid dollarzero (canvas instance), when there will never be a message one could send into it that could trump this argument (how would one specify an argument $0 anyhow)? I do understand that message is not meant to pre-parse values, but shouldn't this be an exception? That way one creating a message with an instance included does not have to go through the trouble of creating an [$0] object that needs to be packed with the rest of the list and then forwarded onward to a message object.
Thoughts?
If others are in favor of this idea, should this take place for all types of messages passed into message object (bang, list, anything, blob, etc.)?
I think it would be easy enough to implement (message boxes would simply save $0 and put it somewhere when the message was getting passed - with some ugliness about recursion to worry about.)
But I'd like to find a solution that somehow allows accessing $1, etc, from either context. I can't find a good design that would accomodate this. (And as always, when I can't think of a good design, I simply work on something else instead hoping I or someone else will think of something good in the future :)
M
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 04:19:10PM -0400, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
Miller et al,
The current code suggests that this should happen (binbuf_eval calls the appropriate function), but since canvas_setcurrent is never called, it fails and returns 0.
Yet, I wonder why message shouldn't be able to pre-parse $0 into a valid dollarzero (canvas instance), when there will never be a message one could send into it that could trump this argument (how would one specify an argument $0 anyhow)? I do understand that message is not meant to pre-parse values, but shouldn't this be an exception? That way one creating a message with an instance included does not have to go through the trouble of creating an [$0] object that needs to be packed with the rest of the list and then forwarded onward to a message object.
Thoughts?
If others are in favor of this idea, should this take place for all types of messages passed into message object (bang, list, anything, blob, etc.)?
-- Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A. Associate Professor Computer Music ICAT Senior Fellow DISIS, L2Ork Virginia Tech School of Performing Arts - 0141 Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-6139 ico@vt.edu www.performingarts.vt.edu disis.music.vt.edu l2ork.music.vt.edu
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
On 09/09/2014 06:13 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
I think it would be easy enough to implement (message boxes would simply save $0 and put it somewhere when the message was getting passed - with some ugliness about recursion to worry about.)
Can you give me an example of such a recursion so that I can try to think of a solution?
But I'd like to find a solution that somehow allows accessing $1, etc, from either context. I can't find a good design that would accomodate this. (And as always, when I can't think of a good design, I simply work on something else instead hoping I or someone else will think of something good in the future :)
M
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 04:19:10PM -0400, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
Miller et al,
The current code suggests that this should happen (binbuf_eval calls the appropriate function), but since canvas_setcurrent is never called, it fails and returns 0.
Yet, I wonder why message shouldn't be able to pre-parse $0 into a valid dollarzero (canvas instance), when there will never be a message one could send into it that could trump this argument (how would one specify an argument $0 anyhow)? I do understand that message is not meant to pre-parse values, but shouldn't this be an exception? That way one creating a message with an instance included does not have to go through the trouble of creating an [$0] object that needs to be packed with the rest of the list and then forwarded onward to a message object.
Thoughts?
If others are in favor of this idea, should this take place for all types of messages passed into message object (bang, list, anything, blob, etc.)?
-- Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A. Associate Professor Computer Music ICAT Senior Fellow DISIS, L2Ork Virginia Tech School of Performing Arts - 0141 Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-6139 ico@vt.edu www.performingarts.vt.edu disis.music.vt.edu l2ork.music.vt.edu
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Hi Ivica,
On 10/09/14 04:19, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
Yet, I wonder why message shouldn't be able to pre-parse $0 into a valid dollarzero (canvas instance), when there will never be a message one
Thoughts?
There has been a lot of discussion regarding this over the years which might be good to read to get an idea on the different philosophical/language design issues:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.puredata.general/56365
Cheers,
Chris.
On Sep 10, 2014 1:17 AM, "Chris McCormick" chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
Hi Ivica,
On 10/09/14 04:19, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
Yet, I wonder why message shouldn't be able to pre-parse $0 into a valid dollarzero (canvas instance), when there will never be a message one
Thoughts?
There has been a lot of discussion regarding this over the years which might be good to read to get an idea on the different philosophical/language design issues:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.puredata.general/56365
Thanks, Chris, for bringing this to my attention. Since one of Miller's core ideas behind pd is absolute backwards compatibility, most of alternatives suggested in that thread would cause unacceptable breakage with backwards compatibility or a really kludge workaround for the support of legacy patches. It seems to me Phil really has a point I completely agree with. FWIW, I am looking to implement this in pd-l2ork and as soon as I get a better idea about the recursion Miller mentioned and how to circumvent it, it should find its way into pd-l2ork's source.
Best,
Ico
Cheers,
Chris.
Two things:
1) the lack of "$0" in messages is only a symptom of a bigger problem with scope of binding symbols in Pd. I'd rather see new objects (or wrapper objects) that handle scope in a sensible manner which doesn't require typing "$0-" at all. There's already no need for $0 in your preset_hub/node design. Why not extend the hub/node idea and get rid of the need for $0 completely?
[hub]/[node] = [send]/[receive] [hub~]/[node~] = [throw~]/[catch~] etc.
2) On a more superficial note, isn't the problem that Pd doesn't store stray "\n" characters in message boxes? The only time I can think of when one would have a real desire for $0 in a message box is when initializing a bunch of receivers:
[; $0-foo 1; $0-bar 2; $0-flub 3;(
But if the box stored "\n" you could get the same clean format with commas: [foo 1, bar 2, flub 3( | [zerofy-me] <- add a "$0-" to the selector
| |
[send]
No ugly zeros, no leading semi-colon, everybody wins!
-Jonathan
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:27 AM, Ivica Bukvic ico@vt.edu wrote:
On Sep 10, 2014 1:17 AM, "Chris McCormick" chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
Hi Ivica,
On 10/09/14 04:19, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
Yet, I wonder why message shouldn't be able to pre-parse $0 into a valid dollarzero (canvas instance), when there will never be a message one
Thoughts?
There has been a lot of discussion regarding this over the years which might be good to read to get an idea on the different philosophical/language design issues:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.puredata.general/56365
Thanks, Chris, for bringing this to my attention. Since one of Miller's core ideas behind pd is absolute backwards compatibility, most of alternatives suggested in that thread would cause unacceptable breakage with backwards compatibility or a really kludge workaround for the support of legacy patches. It seems to me Phil really has a point I completely agree with. FWIW, I am looking to implement this in pd-l2ork and as soon as I get a better idea about the recursion Miller mentioned and how to circumvent it, it should find its way into pd-l2ork's source. Best, Ico
Cheers,
Chris.
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
What about for instance arrays that should maintain scope inside a specific abstraction so that you can have multiple independent abstractions? $0 is very useful IMHO and is also necessary to stay due to backwards compatibility concerns. Therefore, I think the discussion should be limited to a simple yes or no for $0 substitution inside a message as it does not introduce a myriad of other questions.
Having message recognize it as such (the code already seeks to resolve dollarzero but fails because the canvas was not set as current which should be a simple addition of a couple of lines of code) makes sense even if the only benefit is not having to do [$0] or what you are suggesting, namely [zerofy-me]. It is also worth noting that there is no reason why the two could not coexist.
Yet, as it stands right now, $0, contrary to what has been already said in both threads on this topic, is an anomaly inside a message box and behaves like nothing else anywhere else in the code and as such this should be a no-brainer fix, just like having a trigger with static values, like [t 0 f 1] for opening a gate, passing a value, and then immediately closing it. This is what pd-l2ork does (and so does Max). So, rather than putting redundant messages with static values below the [t b] outlet, one object solves it all. To me this is the same situation where message can do it all, and if that makes my patching quicker, I am all for it. On Sep 10, 2014 12:48 PM, "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
Two things:
- the lack of "$0" in messages is only a symptom of a bigger problem with
scope of binding symbols in Pd. I'd rather see new objects (or wrapper objects) that handle scope in a sensible manner which doesn't require typing "$0-" at all. There's already no need for $0 in your preset_hub/node design. Why not extend the hub/node idea and get rid of the need for $0 completely?
[hub]/[node] = [send]/[receive] [hub~]/[node~] = [throw~]/[catch~] etc.
- On a more superficial note, isn't the problem that Pd doesn't store
stray "\n" characters in message boxes? The only time I can think of when one would have a real desire for $0 in a message box is when initializing a bunch of receivers:
[; $0-foo 1; $0-bar 2; $0-flub 3;(
But if the box stored "\n" you could get the same clean format with commas: [foo 1, bar 2, flub 3( | [zerofy-me] <- add a "$0-" to the selector | | [send]
No ugly zeros, no leading semi-colon, everybody wins!
-Jonathan
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:27 AM, Ivica Bukvic ico@vt.edu wrote:
On Sep 10, 2014 1:17 AM, "Chris McCormick" chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
Hi Ivica,
On 10/09/14 04:19, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
Yet, I wonder why message shouldn't be able to pre-parse $0 into a
valid
dollarzero (canvas instance), when there will never be a message one
Thoughts?
There has been a lot of discussion regarding this over the years which might be good to read to get an idea on the different philosophical/language design issues:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.puredata.general/56365
Thanks, Chris, for bringing this to my attention. Since one of Miller's core ideas behind pd is absolute backwards compatibility, most of alternatives suggested in that thread would cause unacceptable breakage with backwards compatibility or a really kludge workaround for the support of legacy patches. It seems to me Phil really has a point I completely agree with. FWIW, I am looking to implement this in pd-l2ork and as soon as I get a better idea about the recursion Miller mentioned and how to circumvent it, it should find its way into pd-l2ork's source. Best, Ico
Cheers,
Chris.
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 09/10/2014 07:08 PM, Ivica Bukvic wrote:
no-brainer fix, just like having a trigger with static values, like [t 0 f 1] for opening a gate, passing a value, and then immediately closing it.
btw, if you do it like this, then your gate will be not be re-entrant safe (that is: you cannot implement a [once] with this)
apart from that, i agree that it is nice to have this.
gfdars IOhannes
Yes I agree the two ideas may coexist. But I also think that if the two were to coexist, $0 in message boxes would pale in comparison in terms of usability.
Hub/node: make a hub on a canvas. Now every node you create on that canvas or subcanvas belongs to that hub. If you need more than one, give them names.
$0: prepend a string with this to make a special name that is unique to a canvas and its subpatches (but not abstractions created in either). The dollarsign variable will be filled in at the time the patch is created, and given a unique value in the running Pd instance. If you want a name inside an abstraction to share the $0 with its parent, just send $0 as an abstraction argument, then use the corresponding argument number inside the abstraction to retrieve the value of the parent $0.
I mean, if you can solve $0 in message boxes in a few hours or so then go ahead and do it. But if it brings up any issues that require workarounds I think the time would be better spent on building out more hub/node infrastructure. (And they don't necessarily need to have that name, I'm just using it as a placeholder.)
Btw-- I just heard yesterday from someone using Max/MSP about something like using a "#0-" prefixes to hack local scope for receive symbols. Is this still the case there, too?
-Jonathan
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:08 PM, Ivica Bukvic ico@vt.edu wrote:
What about for instance arrays that should maintain scope inside a specific abstraction so that you can have multiple independent abstractions? $0 is very useful IMHO and is also necessary to stay due to backwards compatibility concerns. Therefore, I think the discussion should be limited to a simple yes or no for $0 substitution inside a message as it does not introduce a myriad of other questions. Having message recognize it as such (the code already seeks to resolve dollarzero but fails because the canvas was not set as current which should be a simple addition of a couple of lines of code) makes sense even if the only benefit is not having to do [$0] or what you are suggesting, namely [zerofy-me]. It is also worth noting that there is no reason why the two could not coexist. Yet, as it stands right now, $0, contrary to what has been already said in both threads on this topic, is an anomaly inside a message box and behaves like nothing else anywhere else in the code and as such this should be a no-brainer fix, just like having a trigger with static values, like [t 0 f 1] for opening a gate, passing a value, and then immediately closing it. This is what pd-l2ork does (and so does Max). So, rather than putting redundant messages with static values below the [t b] outlet, one object solves it all. To me this is the same situation where message can do it all, and if that makes my patching quicker, I am all for it. On Sep 10, 2014 12:48 PM, "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
Two things:
- the lack of "$0" in messages is only a symptom of a bigger problem with scope of binding symbols in Pd. I'd rather see new objects (or wrapper objects) that handle scope in a sensible manner which doesn't require typing "$0-" at all. There's already no need for $0 in your preset_hub/node design. Why not extend the hub/node idea and get rid of the need for $0 completely?
[hub]/[node] = [send]/[receive] [hub~]/[node~] = [throw~]/[catch~] etc.
- On a more superficial note, isn't the problem that Pd doesn't store stray "\n" characters in message boxes? The only time I can think of when one would have a real desire for $0 in a message box is when initializing a bunch of receivers:
[; $0-foo 1; $0-bar 2; $0-flub 3;(
But if the box stored "\n" you could get the same clean format with commas: [foo 1, bar 2, flub 3( | [zerofy-me] <- add a "$0-" to the selector
| |
[send]
No ugly zeros, no leading semi-colon, everybody wins!
-Jonathan
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:27 AM, Ivica Bukvic ico@vt.edu wrote:
On Sep 10, 2014 1:17 AM, "Chris McCormick" chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
Hi Ivica,
On 10/09/14 04:19, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
Yet, I wonder why message shouldn't be able to pre-parse $0 into a valid dollarzero (canvas instance), when there will never be a message one
Thoughts?
There has been a lot of discussion regarding this over the years which might be good to read to get an idea on the different philosophical/language design issues:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.puredata.general/56365
Thanks, Chris, for bringing this to my attention. Since one of Miller's core ideas behind pd is absolute backwards compatibility, most of alternatives suggested in that thread would cause unacceptable breakage with backwards compatibility or a really kludge workaround for the support of legacy patches. It seems to me Phil really has a point I completely agree with. FWIW, I am looking to implement this in pd-l2ork and as soon as I get a better idea about the recursion Miller mentioned and how to circumvent it, it should find its way into pd-l2ork's source. Best, Ico
Cheers,
Chris.
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 9/11/2014 1:05 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
Yes I agree the two ideas may coexist. But I also think that if the two were to coexist, $0 in message boxes would pale in comparison in terms of usability.
Hub/node: make a hub on a canvas. Now every node you create on that canvas or subcanvas belongs to that hub. If you need more than one, give them names.
$0: prepend a string with this to make a special name that is unique to a canvas and its subpatches (but not abstractions created in either). The dollarsign variable will be filled in at the time the patch is created, and given a unique value in the running Pd instance. If you want a name inside an abstraction to share the $0 with its parent, just send $0 as an abstraction argument, then use the corresponding argument number inside the abstraction to retrieve the value of the parent $0.
I mean, if you can solve $0 in message boxes in a few hours or so then go ahead and do it. But if it brings up any
Not hours, but rather minutes. That is, unless I am missing something... Still not sure, if I fully understood Miller's explanation (see my response).
issues that require workarounds I think the time would be better spent on building out more hub/node infrastructure. (And they don't necessarily need to have that name, I'm just using it as a placeholder.)
Btw-- I just heard yesterday from someone using Max/MSP about something like using a "#0-" prefixes to hack local scope for receive symbols. Is this still the case there, too?
Very much so.
-Jonathan
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:08 PM, Ivica Bukvic ico@vt.edu wrote:
What about for instance arrays that should maintain scope inside a specific abstraction so that you can have multiple independent abstractions? $0 is very useful IMHO and is also necessary to stay due to backwards compatibility concerns. Therefore, I think the discussion should be limited to a simple yes or no for $0 substitution inside a message as it does not introduce a myriad of other questions. Having message recognize it as such (the code already seeks to resolve dollarzero but fails because the canvas was not set as current which should be a simple addition of a couple of lines of code) makes sense even if the only benefit is not having to do [$0] or what you are suggesting, namely [zerofy-me]. It is also worth noting that there is no reason why the two could not coexist. Yet, as it stands right now, $0, contrary to what has been already said in both threads on this topic, is an anomaly inside a message box and behaves like nothing else anywhere else in the code and as such this should be a no-brainer fix, just like having a trigger with static values, like [t 0 f 1] for opening a gate, passing a value, and then immediately closing it. This is what pd-l2ork does (and so does Max). So, rather than putting redundant messages with static values below the [t b] outlet, one object solves it all. To me this is the same situation where message can do it all, and if that makes my patching quicker, I am all for it. On Sep 10, 2014 12:48 PM, "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
Two things: 1) the lack of "$0" in messages is only a symptom of a bigger problem with scope of binding symbols in Pd. I'd rather see new objects (or wrapper objects) that handle scope in a sensible manner which doesn't require typing "$0-" at all. There's already no need for $0 in your preset_hub/node design. Why not extend the hub/node idea and get rid of the need for $0 completely? [hub]/[node] = [send]/[receive] [hub~]/[node~] = [throw~]/[catch~] etc. 2) On a more superficial note, isn't the problem that Pd doesn't store stray "\n" characters in message boxes? The only time I can think of when one would have a real desire for $0 in a message box is when initializing a bunch of receivers: [; $0-foo 1; $0-bar 2; $0-flub 3;( But if the box stored "\n" you could get the same clean format with commas: [foo 1, bar 2, flub 3( | [zerofy-me] <- add a "$0-" to the selector | | [send] No ugly zeros, no leading semi-colon, everybody wins! -Jonathan On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:27 AM, Ivica Bukvic <ico@vt.edu> wrote: On Sep 10, 2014 1:17 AM, "Chris McCormick" <chris@mccormick.cx> wrote: > > Hi Ivica, > > On 10/09/14 04:19, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote: > > Yet, I wonder why message shouldn't be able to pre-parse $0 into a valid > > dollarzero (canvas instance), when there will never be a message one > > > > Thoughts? > > There has been a lot of discussion regarding this over the years which > might be good to read to get an idea on the different > philosophical/language design issues: > > <http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.puredata.general/56365> Thanks, Chris, for bringing this to my attention. Since one of Miller's core ideas behind pd is absolute backwards compatibility, most of alternatives suggested in that thread would cause unacceptable breakage with backwards compatibility or a really kludge workaround for the support of legacy patches. It seems to me Phil really has a point I completely agree with. FWIW, I am looking to implement this in pd-l2ork and as soon as I get a better idea about the recursion Miller mentioned and how to circumvent it, it should find its way into pd-l2ork's source. Best, Ico > > Cheers, > > Chris. > > -- > http://mccormick.cx/ _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 09/10/2014 06:45 PM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote:
- On a more superficial note, isn't the problem that Pd doesn't store stray "\n" characters in message boxes? The only time I can think of when one would have a real desire for $0 in a message box is when initializing a bunch of receivers:
[; $0-foo 1; $0-bar 2; $0-flub 3;(
But if the box stored "\n" you could get the same clean format with commas: [foo 1, bar 2, flub 3( | [zerofy-me] <- add a "$0-" to the selector
| |
[send]
hmm, i totally fail to see how this does not work currently.
ah, is your (only) concert, that the selectors do not line up nicely? it would probably make sense for the msgbox to auto-linebreak between msgboxes anyhow.
or you play a bit with the box-width.
but then, i totally agree that whitespaces should be preserved in patches.
gfmdsar IOhannes
I don't think Pd should attempt to read the users' minds and insert linebreaks after every comma. E.g., in [pitch 40 amp 0.2, pitch 30 amp 0.1( the user might reasonably want a single linebreak in an obvious place.
I also think setting custom message width is the wrong tool for the job. And it will fail if a large atom creates enough space for other strings to sneak up to the previous line: [a 1, b 2, a 3, b 99999, a 5, b 6(
Phil-- would such a feature solve _all_ cases you can think of? I know it's less than ideal, but it's probably easier to implement than $0 in msg box.
If you have cases that don't involve initializing to multiple receive-symbols, could you post an example patch?
-Jonathan
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:53 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
On 09/10/2014 06:45 PM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote:
- On a more superficial note, isn't the problem that Pd doesn't store stray "\n" characters in message boxes? The only time I can think of when one would have a real desire for $0 in a message box is when initializing a bunch of receivers:
[; $0-foo 1; $0-bar 2; $0-flub 3;(
But if the box stored "\n" you could get the same clean format with commas: [foo 1, bar 2, flub 3( | [zerofy-me] <- add a "$0-" to the selector
| |
[send]
hmm, i totally fail to see how this does not work currently.
ah, is your (only) concert, that the selectors do not line up nicely? it would probably make sense for the msgbox to auto-linebreak between msgboxes anyhow.
or you play a bit with the box-width.
but then, i totally agree that whitespaces should be preserved in patches.
gfmdsar IOhannes
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
-
Chris McCormick -
IOhannes m zmölnig -
Ivica Bukvic -
Ivica Ico Bukvic
-
Jonathan Wilkes -
Miller Puckette