----- Original Message -----
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at To: yvan volochine yvan.pd@gmail.com Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [PD] mrpeach routeOSC behaves differently then its previous release?
On 03/12/2012 06:06 PM, yvan volochine wrote:
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.
I personally think it would be great to get rid of the separation between lists and non-list messages (i.e. lists of atoms that start with a symbol other than "list"). But that's a big project that will break backwards compatibility.
In this world of no lists would bang be the equivalent of what is currently an empty list?
Changing specific objects to ignore the difference can be done now without compatibility concerns.
.hc
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list