----- Original Message ----- > From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> > To: yvan volochine <yvan...@gmail.com> > Cc: pd-list <pd-list@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? > > Changing specific objects to ignore the difference can be done now > without compatibility concerns. > > .hc > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list