hmm, I am sorry, I don't think I got what you meant... could you give an example please?

The way I see is that $1...$n are related to the inheritance concept. They could be used inside [send~] & [receive~] objects to force some sort of locality, but you can't really guarantee locality by that, it is just some way around that is not 100% safe, cause if you have [s $1-gain] in an abstraction, and $1 inheriting "A" for instance, a [s A-gain] object in a parent patch (or even on another opened patch) would still get the value globally.

cheers
alex


On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.com> wrote:
Without $0, one would have to use $1 ... $n for locality.  $0 of a
parent patch often needs to be passed as $1 to a child for proper
locality, for instance, so I don't think they are necessarily THAT
different conceptually.

Matt

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Alexandre Porres <porres@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Calling this an exception creates
>> the impression, that $1 in a message
>> is the same as in an object.
> Hmm, I see you have a point! But I am just used to consider "$0" and "$1, $2
> ... $n" different/separate things, being "$0" solely a locality sintax.
> Putting them as separate concepts I see "$1, $2 ... $n" as two different
> things wether in messages or objects, and that "$0" is just useless in
> messages.
> Anyway, I am cool with what needs to be done in order to put "$0" in
> messages, I still think it's a bit of an unnecessary hassle, but it ain't
> that much of a big deal after all.
> The thing that had no other way around was using the Find feature to
> actually find them, so I thought about bringing this all up: the hassle and
> the problem.
> I now see that uncheking "whole word" in the new version is just another
> "way around" rather than actually getting the Find feature to look for "$0",
> or even for the window number once we explicitly tell it which one it is.
> So, nerverminding about "$0" in messages, I would still make a point here
> for the Find feature to be able to find "$0", I hope it isn't much hassle
> getting it to do so.
> Thanks a bunch folks!
> Cheers
> alex
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Roman Haefeli <reduzierer@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 12.11.09 17:21 schrieb "Alexandre Porres" unter <porres@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > But I totally disagree, I have been teaching a lot basic Pd around, and
>> > people
>> > always get confused and think they can just throw "$0" in messages. So I
>> > have
>> > to state and reinforce that there is an exception that it doesn't work
>> > on
>> > messages.
>>
>> Calling this an exception creates the impression, that $1 in a message
>> is the same as in an object.
>>
>> > Without an exception at all, it should be easier to get it, as I
>> > understand.
>>
>> Agreed. But currently, the only thing that makes $0 in a message
>> exceptional
>> is the fact, that it has no meaning at all. Making it be replaced by the
>> canvas identifier wouldn't make it less exceptional at all.
>>
>> roman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail:
>> http://mail.yahoo.de
>
>