On 10/19/2012 10:45 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > On 10/19/2012 03:02 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >>> why would you want to keep OSCx alive? >>> i would rather entirely remove this buggy and un-maintained (as in: >>> upstream, >>> not within PdX) library from any distribution. >> >> Its still widely used and still the easiest way to use OSC, albeit in a >> limited way. If someone makes comparably easy way to use OSC, then I see no >> reason to keep this one. > > here's 2 abstractions that implement OSCx's [sendOSC] and [dumpOSC] in terms > of vanilla/mrpeach objects. > > [OSCroute] cannot really be implemented in vanilla due to it's multi-outlet > nature. otoh, [routeOSC] is compatible with [OSCroute] (apart from the name).
That's good to have, please post and maintain that somewhere, like maybe in the 'osc' lib. But its not yet a replacement because at the very least its not deployed. .hc _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
