Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
this is exactly the question i asked; probably this was not so clear)
I think omitting something here because you don't think its useful is not a good idea. Instead, I think $@ should always expand unless that causes problems somewhere. That's the spirit of flexibility that makes Pd good.
i think you totally misunderstand me.
$@ is implemented, this is not the problem. the question i was asking is, what this will produce:
[1 2 3( | [mymsg bla-$@-blu(
i see 2 possibilities, and both seem weird. they seem weirder when comparing them to single $@, like in [mymsg $@ $@(
fmgasdr IOhannes
it really seems to me like this is something i have spent little thought on and you have spent no thought on and now we try to discuss it.