marius schebella wrote:
it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much!
I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius.
Yeah, and the very same happens when you use [send/receive $1-blabla] and you need to change it into a message box.
I personally think it is a pitty that message boxes use $'s with a different meaning than objects; it would be far more elegant (in my opinion obviously) if message-arguments used a different symbol, and if the $n in a message box referred to the n-th argument of the patch, not the message; that would include $0. That's how max works (if I'm not confused), where I think # refers to patch creation arguments and $ refers to message arguments (though probably max doesn't have a #0, does it?)
That's the ONLY one thing I like more in max than in PD... up to now.
The only way of introducing such a facility without breaking backward-compatibility (or is it forward?), would be to introduce a "third" symbol, say "@" (well it should be one that is currently not allowed in messages): @n if used inside a message, would refer to the "$n" of the patch (including @0), and outside a message box, i.e. in an object, it would be a synonim of $n.
Is this nonsense?
matteo
-- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor: Scegli ciò che stai cercando tra migliaia di annunci, prova con Email.it Annunci, lÂinserzione è gratuita! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6891&d=16-8
How does the 4 digit number get assigned to $0? I have always been curious about this.
Kevin
On 8/16/07, Matteo Sisti Sette matteo.sistisette@email.it wrote:
marius schebella wrote:
it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much!
I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius.
Yeah, and the very same happens when you use [send/receive $1-blabla] and you need to change it into a message box.
I personally think it is a pitty that message boxes use $'s with a different meaning than objects; it would be far more elegant (in my opinion obviously) if message-arguments used a different symbol, and if the $n in a message box referred to the n-th argument of the patch, not the message; that would include $0. That's how max works (if I'm not confused), where I think # refers to patch creation arguments and $ refers to message arguments (though probably max doesn't have a #0, does it?)
That's the ONLY one thing I like more in max than in PD... up to now.
The only way of introducing such a facility without breaking backward-compatibility (or is it forward?), would be to introduce a "third" symbol, say "@" (well it should be one that is currently not allowed in messages): @n if used inside a message, would refer to the "$n" of the patch (including @0), and outside a message box, i.e. in an object, it would be a synonim of $n.
Is this nonsense?
matteo
-- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor: Scegli ciò che stai cercando tra migliaia di annunci, prova con Email.it Annunci, l'inserzione è gratuita! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6891&d=16-8
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
the first appearance of $0 is substituted by 1000, the next with 1001 and so on. marius.
Kevin McCoy wrote:
How does the 4 digit number get assigned to $0? I have always been curious about this.
Kevin
On 8/16/07, Matteo Sisti Sette matteo.sistisette@email.it wrote:
marius schebella wrote:
it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much! I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius.
Yeah, and the very same happens when you use [send/receive $1-blabla] and you need to change it into a message box.
I personally think it is a pitty that message boxes use $'s with a different meaning than objects; it would be far more elegant (in my opinion obviously) if message-arguments used a different symbol, and if the $n in a message box referred to the n-th argument of the patch, not the message; that would include $0. That's how max works (if I'm not confused), where I think # refers to patch creation arguments and $ refers to message arguments (though probably max doesn't have a #0, does it?)
That's the ONLY one thing I like more in max than in PD... up to now.
The only way of introducing such a facility without breaking backward-compatibility (or is it forward?), would be to introduce a "third" symbol, say "@" (well it should be one that is currently not allowed in messages): @n if used inside a message, would refer to the "$n" of the patch (including @0), and outside a message box, i.e. in an object, it would be a synonim of $n.
Is this nonsense?
matteo
-- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor: Scegli ciò che stai cercando tra migliaia di annunci, prova con Email.it Annunci, l'inserzione è gratuita! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6891&d=16-8
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Kevin McCoy wrote:
How does the 4 digit number get assigned to $0? I have always been curious about this.
It's a special case in the program. It comes from the canvas environment, which exists for every non-subpatch canvas. Every such canvas gets a new number. it starts at 1000 and every new canvas gets a new number.
It can be more than 4 digits. You can go up to 1000000 before it breaks A_DOLLSYM (dollar-in-symbol) and up to 16777216 in A_DOLLAR (standalone dollar). Adding more RAM or going to 64-bit mode does not raise those limits.
Outside of pd, you can have much bigger numbers assigned to $0. For example, if you have a bill of 500,000,000,000 yugoslav dinars (http://images.goantiques.com/dbimages/UYR9212/UYR9212yd500.jpg), you can rest assured that it has the same value as $0.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
The only way of introducing such a facility without breaking backward-compatibility (or is it forward?), would be to introduce a "third" symbol, say "@" (well it should be one that is currently not allowed in messages): @n if used inside a message, would refer to the "$n" of the patch (including @0), and outside a message box, i.e. in an object, it would be a synonim of $n.
yes, for compatibility it is only important, that old patches will still run on new versions, but new features don't have to be compatible with old versions of pd. why not use # as in max? @ is already used to access object attributes. marius.