[PD] Route Bang Bug

[Zachary Crockett]

IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> hmm, while you discovered clearly a bug, your patch is buggy too.
>
> quoting the pd documentation of [route]:
> "Route checks the first element of a message against each of its
> arguments, which may be numbers or symbols (but not a mixture of  
> the two.)"
>
> this means that both [route 5 bang] and [route bang 5] are illegal!

Ah, good call -- thanks for the clarification & the patches.  On that  
same note though -- what I actually wanted to do (as might be obvious  
from my mistake) was [sel bang] but I get "error: select: no method  
for 'bang'" when [sel] receives a bang message... so I went looking  
for alternatives.  Since the [route] documentation has a bang example  
I went with what works.

Is this the correct behavior for [select]?  And if so, why, and  
what's the best way to test whether an incoming message equals bang?   
Using [route] (properly)?

Thanks so much for the help,
Zac
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2365 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20050604/4350010b/attachment.bin>