|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:||Mike McGonagle (mjm...@gmail.com)|
|Date:||Feb 9, 2009 2:43:17 pm|
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Jonathan Wilkes <janc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think it would make sense (both pedagogically and practically) if $0 in
message boxes actually _did_ something. Incrementing per message box would be
one option, but expanding to a user-defined symbol or float could be very
Actually, for me, I always think of the word "CONTEXT". An abstraction is one context, and the meanings of the $ args means one thing. While in a message, a $ arg means something completely different. Once I realized that the two are not the same thing, it made sense.
If the $ args had the same meanings in both an abstraction and a message, there would be no way to create a message inside of an abstraction that allowed for $ args that were unrelated to the $ args in the abstraction.
In other words, if they were the same thing, there would be no way to create a variable message that had more args than there were in the abstraction itself.
[loadbang] | [f $0] | [; set $0(
That way, message box $0 is set by an incoming message: it then sets all current
(and future) message box $0's for the patch/abstraction. Alternatively, you
could use it for other stuff, like a substitution for
abstraction $0: set by pd, unique abs instance identifier, common to all object
boxes message box $0: set by user through msg box, common to all abstraction instance
Seems like that would be consistent with the language as far as I understand it.
--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Matt Barber <brbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Matt Barber <brbr...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PD] here I go again..dynamic abstractions To: "PD-List" <pd-l...@iem.at> Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 9:01 PM [f $0]-[message $1( is conceptually different from [message $0( for the same reason that [f $2]-[message $1( is conceptually different from [message $2( (and would be, even if $0 had any meaning in a message box). When I teach I always start with dollar-sign expansion in message-boxes, since it's simpler and easier to comprehend. Then when this issue comes up when they move to dollar-sign expansion in abstractions (and it always does come up), you can help them think it through with what they already know about message boxes.
I only see two options: one is to use a different dereference symbol for abstraction arguments in message boxes -- but why worry with that since it's easy enough to get abstraction arguments into messages at "run-time?" -- the other is to make an exception and have special behavior for $0 in message boxes (that is, make it the same as in object boxes) -- but then this probably breaks the consistency of the language.
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:33:36 +0100 From: Georg Werner <geo...@fricklr.de> Subject: Re: [PD] here I go again..dynamic abstractions To: pd-l...@iem.at Message-ID: <4990...@fricklr.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
How about making $0 in messages be a message
if somebody really needs that - i dont ;)
ok, i give up. i think we are on a rather philosophical point now. but i had a lot of times when students where asking why they have to write [f $0]-[foobar $1( instead of [foobar $0(. so this came up from a users point of view. after getting all your input (thanks). i think Claude brought up the most logical solution, because this makes the different functions of $ obvious and obsolete. And it would help users and devs. (i know it will be a long way - cause it will break some patches ...
$ 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.
not a nightmare, but this is one point why Pd is harder to learn for beginners than it has to. georg
Garry Shandling - "I'm dating a woman now who, evidently, is unaware of it."