Context: we have an open PR that allows us to expand '$0' in messages. I'd like to know if it's been officially rejected so we can close it for good and settle the debate. Then maybe think of something else.

Miller's response:

Em sáb., 27 de nov. de 2021 às 21:29, Miller Puckette <msp@ucsd.edu> escreveu:

I disagree with the "$0" in message box idea. Why not $1 then?
(Oh, because it already does something different...)

It would be interestnig to allow message boxes to access canvas creation
arguments somehow, but not that way.

To which me and Christoph argued things like
- $0 is not a creation argument after all, i.e. it is not part of "ce_argv". Also, it really has a different purpose. (...) $0 would be a special case either way.

- It was also never documented as an 'argument'. (...) under a user perspective, we are never aware of it and really expect to be able to use it inside message boxes so they can communicate to local [receive] objects (..) We also have unexpected and weird behaviour in other places. It's all a matter of documenting.

Now, what I actually have come up as a solution for me, so far, was designing an external object named "message". It does all that messages do, they understand comma and semicolons (and act accordingly). The messages can be set via a right inlet (with commas and semicolons being possible by escaping with "\") and the object also acts as a general message storage object. So the idea is to have something like this that acts like a message and is an object. Moreover, as an object, it can also deal with "$1" ... "$2" ... ect as expected, and as also has been considered here as something desired.

If this idea resonates well, I can try and open a PR for it and we can discuss the design details.

see screenshot of the object

cheers