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

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at at.or.at
Tue Mar 13 03:30:55 CET 2012


On 03/12/2012 07:04 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> ----- 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?

Donno.  That particular rule has always felt arbitrary to me.  I don't
think I've ever run into a case where there was an empty list being used
as a bang.

.hc



More information about the Pd-list mailing list