On 05/21/2011 10:39 PM, cyrille henry wrote:
what about [routeOSC /foo/* /foo] ?
That won't work. RouteOSC only matches "one level at a time", meaning that [routeOSC /foo/bar] will never match anything (indeed it should issue a warning at creation time). That applies also to /foo/*, I've just tried it.
Even if it worked, you wouldn't be able to distinguish /foo/bar from /foo/etc after that, because routeOSC strips the address that matches * (just as it strips the address that matches anything).
I don't see any way out of this, until [routeOSC] will consider a message without an address as equivalent to a message addressed to "/".
That would be consistent with the convention that "/" means "the root". Any node is the root of its own subtree, so any message addressed to /foo is addressed to the root of the /foo subtree. After "routing" a message addressed to /foo through [routeOSC /foo] you obtain a message that is addressed to the root (of the current subtree), so it should be considered equivalent to a messaged addressed to / by any cascaded [routeOSC]. In my opinion.