Phil Stone wrote:
I think the fact that this is an eternally-recurring topic points to just how irritating this one little foible of Pd is -- it's confusing to newbies,
i agree
and it's annoying to more experienced programmers.
but i can't follow here .-)
But $0 is exceptional in *all* cases! Its use in objects has a very different meaning than the use of $1, $2.... in objects. Yet no one calls for eliminating $0 from object boxes -- why is the same argument
actually i do. obviously it would break everything, so i won't say that loud.
repeated over and over as justification for its prohibition in message boxes? I just don't understand this.
If only (as many have said) "$0" had been written as "#0" or something else completely un-encumbered with ideas about what "$" must mean in Pd.
but why "0"? what is #1 to mean then? i always favoured a more bash-like syntax, e.g. "$$" (which is the PID of a process; i think this maps nicely to what $0 currently is)
The only thing i don't really get: Why seems there some agreement, that using $0 to get the selector could be confusing?
because i want to get the selector of an object-box as well (it's name).
Well, I think that would make things even worse - further muddying the waters, as it were, by adding yet another meaning to the dollar-sign. I don't see it as any more consistent or "pure", given the unique role that $0 has in *all* cases.
as explained lengthily months ago, i still don't think that messages should have any notion of the surrounding patch.
When all is said and done, things in the Pd world will go on as they have, and we won't really suffer because of this one little grain of sand in our shell. But we probably will continue to discuss it every few months!
don't know whether we should. most likely, we will.
fgmasdr IOhannes