- *$0 is not a creation argument after all, i.e. it is not part of
"ce_argv".*
I don't know... Can't we consider $0 as an "unconditional" creation argument?...
case either way.*
I'm not sure either. To me, both $0 and $1 etc. can be used to identify an instance of an abstraction. IMO $0 is the quick way, but has the limitation to make it (nearly) impossible to access members from the outside. That's why it often happened to me to rename an instance [myAbs] to e.g [myAbs myabs1], then to replace $0 in [myAbs] with $1, so I can easily access [myAbs]'s members from the parent - from anywhere in fact (Actually, nowadays I tend to use as few $0 as possible). If we could use $0 in messages, then the last operation would be more complicated (cause you couldn't simply substitute $0 with e.g $1). So I think it's better to keep the $0/$n symmetry.
I think having a "message" object is a better idea [than $$'s one]
What I like with the $$ idea, is that it would provide a simple way to merge creation arguments with variable arguments, i.e compose a message with both the abstraction arguments and the incoming message elements.