Dan Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 14:13 +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >> > so it can wither away in a corner? Does it offer something that mrpeach >> > doesn't? >> >> well, you use only one object instead of two (but of course you can >> build [dumpOSC]/[sendOSC] as abstractions with mrpeach's objects) >> i don't know any other "advantage"
> One nice thing about sendOSC is that it does not complain to the console when > the recipient machine is not running, unlike udpsend. I have some patches > that forward OSC to > two machines, but when I'm testing one is not running and its annoying to > have to go in and close > the udpsend. hmm, i would rather say that it is a feature that the [udpsend] complains if it is not connected. to not get a constant stream of errors (for every message sent to the unconnected [udpsend]) i usually use a [spigot] controlled by the connection state (output of [udpsend]) fgmasdr IOhannes _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
