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 overhead in dynamically allowing $0 to be expanded.

Best,

Ico
-- 
Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
Director, Creativity + Innovation Director, Human-Centered Design iPhD Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology
Virginia Tech
Creative Technologies in Music
School of Performing Arts – 0141
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-6139
ico@vt.edu

ci.icat.vt.edu
l2ork.icat.vt.edu
ico.bukvic.net


On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 8:34 AM Christof Ressi <info@christofressi.com> wrote:

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 place...

On 02.12.2021 14:25, Antoine Rousseau wrote:
Without the "$$" syntax, I wouldn't see the problem...

encouraging the use of $0 in messages, without allowing to easily substitute with [another way to identify the abstraction] $1?..



Le jeu. 2 déc. 2021 à 13:18, Christof Ressi <info@christofressi.com> a écrit :
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 arguments and the incoming message elements.

I have to say I quite like the "$$" idea as well, assuming that we can take the risk of breaking a few patches (if any).

I don't think it's a good idea to add a new object just for this functionality. For me this would create unnecessary complexity (you have to learn yet another object).

I'm not sure either. To me, both $0 and $1 etc. can be used to identify an instance of an abstraction.
IMO $0 is the quick way, but has the limitation to make it (nearly) impossible to access members from the outside.
That's why it often happened to me to rename an instance [myAbs] to e.g [myAbs myabs1], then to replace $0 in [myAbs] with $1, so I can easily access [myAbs]'s members from the parent - from anywhere in fact (Actually, nowadays I tend to use as few $0 as possible).
If we could use $0 in messages, then the last operation would be more complicated (cause you couldn't simply substitute $0 with e.g $1).

I agree that if we get the "$$" syntax, then it makes more sense to use "$$0" for the $0 argument! Without the "$$" syntax, I wouldn't see the problem...

One downside of using "$$0" is that it wouldn't be compatible with Pd-L2Ork / PurrData.If they have already diverged significantly, we probably don't have to care, but otherwise...

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list