David Sabine wrote:
Hello all,
I've noticed an oddity in the [route] object. I don't want to alarm anyone, as there's really no problem.but this is just food for thought.
Consider this for a moment: [trigger s b] or [trigger f b]
These are trigger objects which sends a symbol+bang or a float+bang.
Now consider: [route s b] or [route f b]
This object fails because [route] doesn't allow us to abbreviate the atom type. Wouldn't it be nice to abbreviate the name of the atom type in the route object? Could this be accomplished in future versions without causing backwards-compatibility issues? [route l b s f a] would be much more friendly (in terms of onscreen real estate) than [route list bang symbol float anything].
Would this cause any issues if I sent a list to [route] in which the first element is "f"? (for example) or "a"?
Does anybody have any thoughts about this?
yes, it would break quite everything if you want to seperate atoms by their type, you might either use the [route] as you proposed (with "symbol" or "float" instead of "s" and "f") and loose the atom type "symbol" for symbols (you would need an explicit [symbol] object afterwards or use [segregate] from zexy. (or another external i don't know)
mfg.as.rd IOhannes