On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 09:39:31AM -0800, Matt Wright wrote: > When we wrote that part of the OSC Spec, we were thinking > of the case in which an OSC Method doesn't need to know > the address through which it was invoked, i.e., "usual" > cases like setting a parameter. That's why the spec > doesn't mention sending either the expanded or unexpanded > OSC address to a handler --- sorry about that. > > Why not simply always send both? That seems more general > and easier to understand than a special case, at least for > me.
Well, that would require changing the API, which is a Bad Thing, and there is a user_data parameter than can encode that kind of contextual information when its needed. Also, the method callback functions are too complicated allready :) - Steve
