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

[Jonathan Wilkes]

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

> From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>
> To: Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com>
> Cc: yvan volochine <yvan.pd at gmail.com>; pd-list <pd-list at iem.at>
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [PD] mrpeach routeOSC behaves differently then its previous release?
> 
> 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.

It happens any time you bang [list], but it doesn't matter because pretty 
much everything treats the output as a bang.

In a world without the special selector "list", presumably you'd still have 
an object that counts the number of atoms in a message.  Let's call 
it [length].  Does [length] count "bang" as "0"?  And what about custom 
selectors like "foo"?  If we're counting message arguments it seems we'd 
have to differ from the way [list length] works and count those as "0", too, 
but then every single-selector message registers as an empty list.  Not that 
you couldn't treat bang specially elsewhere-- but still, it seems weird.

-Jonathan