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

[Jonathan Wilkes]

----- Original Message -----

> From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>
> To: yvan volochine <yvan.pd at gmail.com>
> Cc: pd-list <pd-list at 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 at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>