On 2017-02-23 02:39, Martin Peach wrote:
> Right now, [unpackOSC] only accepts lists, which must be complete OSC
> packets. I could make it accept lists,
i think that [unpackOSC] behaves as it should.
esp. i don't think that it should attempt to form packets out of a
bytestream by itself.
this is clearly the task of a lower-level protocol:
the original OSC-1.0 specs didn't mention any means to do the
packetizing on stream-based protocols (most likely an omission), only
later SLIP was *recommended* (rather than *mandated*) [citation needed].
afaik, there are still implementations out there that do not use SLIP
for packetizing (but rather prefix each OSC-packet with a 4 byte length
field [citation needed]).
> or single floats, with no output
> until it has a complete packet or a definite erro
the problem with this is, that there is no way to know when an OSC
*bundle* (rather than a message) has finished (if you don't have a
end-of-package marker).
so if you received a time-tagged bundle with two messages A & B, and
immediately after that a plain message C, unpackOSC wouldn't have a way
to auto-sense the difference between B and C (either B would be output
as "immediate" without a timetag, or C would be timetagged; both are wrong)
fgamf
IOhannes
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list