[PD] mrpeach routeOSC behaves differently then its previous release?

yvan volochine yvan.pd at gmail.com
Mon Mar 12 23:06:04 CET 2012


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 at gmail.com
http://yvanvolochine.com



More information about the Pd-list mailing list