12 Mar
2012
12 Mar
'12
11:06 p.m.
On 03/12/2012 02:54 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
IMHO, [routeOSC] should accept these two as the same thing:
[/bla/1/blabli 0.437( [list /bla/1/blabli 0.437(
It'll make life easier for a lot of people, and I can't see any disadvantage in that setup.
well, in pd in general, [list foo bar( is not exactly the same as [foo bar(, unless I'm missing something (if so, please, feel free to enlighten me ;)).
why not change also the behavior of [route] (and tons of other objects) to make life easier for a lot of people ??
I don't really see the point.. [routeOSC] expects an OSC path, [list /foo/bar 666( is obviously not one.
my 20 COP anyway.
y
-- yvan.volochine@gmail.com http://yvanvolochine.com