I don't know how easy/difficult an implementation of new variable names would be. I would give most priority to any kind of $0 feature in messages. and then the next step for me would be to differentiate between $-variables (in messages) and # or ? or @ variables in patches. that way you would not break backwards compatibility, and a #0 or ?0 or @0 in a message or an object would behave like the old $0 var in objects. additionally the $1-$10 types could still be used in objects to be able to load old patches. but instead you could also use #1-#10 or ?1-?10 or @1-@10. that would make less confusion and you could also easily use #, ?, @ in messages...
the object attributes mentioned below appear in flext externals and are very useful. very!
marius.
Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
marius schebella wrote
why not use # as in max? @ is already used to access object attributes. marius.
# may be a good option, but:
- It would not be as in max, it would be viceversa (max uses # for creation
arguments and $ for message arguments)
- I guess it may imply some implementation difficulties, since in the patch
file $'s are actually saved as #'s
(indeed there's even a bug that if you open a slider/toggle's properties and it has a property with some $'s inside its name other than at the beginning, they will show as #, although they work properly)
I didn't know about object attributes in PD. I will search and learn about them before I ask anything :)
bye m.
-- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor: Hai bisogno di contanti per realizzare i tuoi desideri? Prometeo ti propone prestiti da 1.500 a 31.000 Euro! Clicca qui per un preventivo immediato. Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6916&d=17-8
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list