Imagine you've got a single sequencer in the top level of a patch.
Somehow, from your first description, I didn't get this idea at all Basically it's the same as jameslo's second example here and my second example here -- the latter of which explicitly strips the [send] name off of a list btw.
The simulated function via setting [send] to the caller of the "function" is possible, but it somewhat contradicts the data flow paradigm. It is important to see that in Pd, every operation is done sequentially, in a strict linear order of operations. So you are actually always in control over what is happening.
I do see the point -- I think that concern is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the intention here is to send to one and only one [receive], and (deterministically) this [receive] object will trigger its chain before the [send] yields control.
If there are accidentally two [receive] boxes with the same name, that would indeed be non-deterministic, but also user error.
Patching is just more fun.
I do find it fun in the sense of learning a different way of thinking. I don't know that I will ever really love patching in the same way that I love coding though.
hjh