http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2004-12/003428.html

Essentially, being able to send a message to the current canvas in vanilla-pd without naming it, "this" in the current context is similar to the Java concept of "this".

If Miller wants to remove [namecanvas], just give us a "this" expression!  What about $! ?

~Brandon

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

iirc, the reason for obsoleting [namecanvas] is that it allows the dynamic patching engine to get into an inconsistent (probably crashing) state (true, there are other things that allow this as well, without getting obsoleted).

Especially, you can crash pd using the thing that is supposed to be replacing namecanvas, using a total of 3 objects. So, the reason for obsoleting [namecanvas] is bogus. Here's an attachment for demonstrating that.


anyhow, [namecanvas] has no concept of "this" either.

What's a concept of "this", to you ? It seems that we don't agree on this... we're not using the same vocabulary.


 _______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu Bouchard ------------------------------ Villeray, Montréal, QC

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