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

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

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.

Changing specific objects to ignore the difference can be done now
without compatibility concerns.

.hc