On 03/12/2012 07:04 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > ----- 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?
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. .hc _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list