marius schebella wrote
why not use # as in max? @ is already used to access object attributes. marius.
# may be a good option, but:
- It would not be as in max, it would be viceversa (max uses # for creation
arguments and $ for message arguments)
- I guess it may imply some implementation difficulties, since in the patch
file $'s are actually saved as #'s
(indeed there's even a bug that if you open a slider/toggle's properties and it has a property with some $'s inside its name other than at the beginning, they will show as #, although they work properly)
I didn't know about object attributes in PD. I will search and learn about them before I ask anything :)
bye m.
-- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor: Hai bisogno di contanti per realizzare i tuoi desideri? Prometeo ti propone prestiti da 1.500 a 31.000 Euro! Clicca qui per un preventivo immediato. Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6916&d=17-8
I don't know how easy/difficult an implementation of new variable names would be. I would give most priority to any kind of $0 feature in messages. and then the next step for me would be to differentiate between $-variables (in messages) and # or ? or @ variables in patches. that way you would not break backwards compatibility, and a #0 or ?0 or @0 in a message or an object would behave like the old $0 var in objects. additionally the $1-$10 types could still be used in objects to be able to load old patches. but instead you could also use #1-#10 or ?1-?10 or @1-@10. that would make less confusion and you could also easily use #, ?, @ in messages...
the object attributes mentioned below appear in flext externals and are very useful. very!
marius.
Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
marius schebella wrote
why not use # as in max? @ is already used to access object attributes. marius.
# may be a good option, but:
- It would not be as in max, it would be viceversa (max uses # for creation
arguments and $ for message arguments)
- I guess it may imply some implementation difficulties, since in the patch
file $'s are actually saved as #'s
(indeed there's even a bug that if you open a slider/toggle's properties and it has a property with some $'s inside its name other than at the beginning, they will show as #, although they work properly)
I didn't know about object attributes in PD. I will search and learn about them before I ask anything :)
bye m.
-- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor: Hai bisogno di contanti per realizzare i tuoi desideri? Prometeo ti propone prestiti da 1.500 a 31.000 Euro! Clicca qui per un preventivo immediato. Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6916&d=17-8
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
I don't know how easy/difficult an implementation of new variable names would be. I would give most priority to any kind of $0 feature in messages. and then the next step for me would be to differentiate between $-variables (in messages) and # or ? or @ variables in patches. that way you would not break backwards compatibility, and a #0 or ?0 or @0 in a message or an object would behave like the old $0 var in objects.
ATM I cannot think of a way, that introduces # as a substitute for $ in "$1 ..." messages, that would *not* break backwards compatibility: What if someone already used #1 in a message to mean just a literal "#1"?
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote:
I would give most priority to any kind of $0 feature in messages. and then the next step for me would be to differentiate between $-variables (in messages) and # or ? or @ variables in patches. that way you would not break backwards compatibility,
What about patches that use # or ? or @ to mean something else already?
By treating all character combinations to be valid unless otherwise used, Pd has painted itself in a corner about extending functionality. Anything new breaks some compatibility: you can only hope that a certain combination of characters is not already in use by actual patches, but you can't even know that.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
Hallo, Mathieu Bouchard hat gesagt: // Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
What about patches that use # or ? or @ to mean something else already?
By treating all character combinations to be valid unless otherwise used, Pd has painted itself in a corner about extending functionality. Anything new breaks some compatibility: you can only hope that a certain combination of characters is not already in use by actual patches, but you can't even know that.
True. That's why I think, adding new meanings should only be considered for things more urgent. While the slightly different meaning of $ in message and object context is a bit confusing at first, it's something that one can get used to quite easily. OTOH I'm really glad that dollar substitution inside of a symbol instead of only at the start is possible now, even if that did break some older patches. This feature is just too convenient to pass by.
CIao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote:
I would give most priority to any kind of $0 feature in messages. and then the next step for me would be to differentiate between $-variables (in messages) and # or ? or @ variables in patches. that way you would not break backwards compatibility,
What about patches that use # or ? or @ to mean something else already?
By treating all character combinations to be valid unless otherwise used, Pd has painted itself in a corner about extending functionality. Anything new breaks some compatibility: you can only hope that a certain combination of characters is not already in use by actual patches, but you can't even know that.
You are right, I thought it is unlikely that people use these characters often, but who knows. (maybe a search on the existing abstractions in the repository will give some clues.)
even with a combination of charactars $$ ## #$ $# @@ ?? you can't be sure that they are not used before.
but we have forums and lists, and I think that should be sufficiant to find a possible solution.
marius.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote:
even with a combination of charactars $$ ## #$ $# @@ ?? you can't be sure that they are not used before.
Right. For example, http://www.localarcade.com/arcade_art/data/thumbnails/2/q-bert.jpg
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote:
even with a combination of charactars $$ ## #$ $# @@ ?? you can't be sure that they are not used before.
Right. For example, http://www.localarcade.com/arcade_art/data/thumbnails/2/q-bert.jpg
to make it more clear "u can't be sure that they are not used before in pd patches, even exluding cases where people intentionally want to break patches." marius.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
- I guess it may imply some implementation difficulties, since in the
patch file $'s are actually saved as #'s (indeed there's even a bug that if you open a slider/toggle's properties and it has a property with some $'s inside its name other than at the beginning, they will show as #, although they work properly)
No, this is just a hack at the level of the property dialogs, not at the level of saving files. It's because of some superstition about backslashes.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
-
Frank Barknecht -
marius schebella -
Mathieu Bouchard -
Matteo Sisti Sette