| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Rory Walsh | Feb 5, 2009 9:46 am | .pd |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Feb 5, 2009 9:51 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Feb 6, 2009 1:51 am | |
| Chris McCormick | Feb 6, 2009 5:13 am | |
| Georg Werner | Feb 6, 2009 2:07 pm | |
| Claude Heiland-Allen | Feb 6, 2009 4:04 pm | |
| Georg Werner | Feb 6, 2009 5:28 pm | |
| Frank Barknecht | Feb 7, 2009 3:31 am | |
| Georg Werner | Feb 8, 2009 6:13 am | |
| Frank Barknecht | Feb 9, 2009 12:47 am | |
| zmoe...@iem.at | Feb 9, 2009 3:18 am | |
| Georg Werner | Feb 9, 2009 4:33 am | |
| zmoe...@iem.at | Feb 9, 2009 5:30 am | |
| Matt Barber | Feb 9, 2009 12:00 pm | |
| Jonathan Wilkes | Feb 9, 2009 1:45 pm | |
| Jonathan Wilkes | Feb 9, 2009 2:17 pm | |
| Mike McGonagle | Feb 9, 2009 2:43 pm | |
| Phil Stone | Feb 9, 2009 3:50 pm | |
| Georg Werner | Feb 9, 2009 3:52 pm | |
| Mathieu Bouchard | Feb 9, 2009 10:57 pm | |
| Frank Barknecht | Feb 10, 2009 2:02 am | |
| zmoe...@iem.at | Feb 10, 2009 3:50 am | |
| Phil Stone | Feb 10, 2009 7:29 am | |
| Mathieu Bouchard | Feb 10, 2009 8:37 am | |
| Mathieu Bouchard | Feb 10, 2009 8:45 am | |
| Mathieu Bouchard | Feb 10, 2009 8:56 am | |
| Frank Barknecht | Feb 10, 2009 8:59 am | |
| Mathieu Bouchard | Feb 10, 2009 9:05 am | |
| Jack | Feb 10, 2009 9:18 am | |
| Chris McCormick | Feb 10, 2009 9:20 am | |
| Phil Stone | Feb 10, 2009 9:30 am | |
| Matt Barber | Feb 10, 2009 9:36 am | |
| Mathieu Bouchard | Feb 10, 2009 9:50 am | |
| IOhannes m zmölnig | Feb 10, 2009 10:22 am |
| Subject: | Re: [PD] here I go again..dynamic abstractions | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Georg Werner (geo...@fricklr.de) | |
| Date: | Feb 6, 2009 5:28:38 pm | |
| List: | at.iem.pd-list | |
Hi Claude,
thanks for your explanation - i got your point, but this 2-phase parser is (must have been) already implemented in Pd. So, where do you see a problem in expanding/replacing $0 in "Phase 2" - like $1 etc. (with that special fixed value)? georg
Claude Heiland-Allen schrieb:
Georg Werner wrote:
hi,
Hi Georg,
can somebody explain why there is a "3rd rule of $-expansion: 'there is no $0 in message-boxes'".
The following is from an implementor's viewpoint, not a user's viewpoint, so be warned :)
I don't know why, but it makes parsing Pd patches 1000x less straightforward than required (you need a two-phase parser that has a special exception to detect message boxes and not expand dollars, allowing the message box objects to parse them itself later, while expanding dollars for everything else).
I ran into this problem implementing PotatoData (basically a proof of concept, it's a Pd patch interpreter written in Lua with minimal amounts of C for DSP, can run some trivial audio patches) a couple of months ago, and just ducked it completely - message boxes in my implementation don't support dollars at all (nor commas or semicolons for sequencing and redirection, but that's a separate issue).
I wish message boxes had used a different special character, it would have made life much much easier.
i stumble every now and then about it and it is IMHO not self-explanatory.
It's a mess. There are two similar concepts at work:
1. replacing dollars with arguments at patch execution time 2. replacing dollars with arguments at message passing time
But they both use the same $ symbol syntax in Pd, so you can't have both taking place (ie, use $ at patch execution to create a message box that has $ to replace at dataflow time). And $0 is in phase 1, so what should a message box do with $0 in phase 2?
The confusion arises partly because when Pd loads a patch, it's really internally passing messages around.
$ in message boxes is unfortunate. If there was a different symbol, perhaps #, you could combine both phases in one object box to avoid jumping through pointless hoops.
[$0-#1-$2-#3( would be nice, but as Pd is now, it's a nightmare.
Claude
_______________________________________________
Pd-l...@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list






.pd