----- Original Message ----- > From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> > To: Jonathan Wilkes <jancs...@yahoo.com> > Cc: yvan volochine <yvan...@gmail.com>; pd-list <pd-list@iem.at> > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:30 PM > Subject: Re: [PD] mrpeach routeOSC behaves differently then its previous > release? > > 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.
It happens any time you bang [list], but it doesn't matter because pretty much everything treats the output as a bang. In a world without the special selector "list", presumably you'd still have an object that counts the number of atoms in a message. Let's call it [length]. Does [length] count "bang" as "0"? And what about custom selectors like "foo"? If we're counting message arguments it seems we'd have to differ from the way [list length] works and count those as "0", too, but then every single-selector message registers as an empty list. Not that you couldn't treat bang specially elsewhere-- but still, it seems weird. -Jonathan _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list