On 2010-06-16 01:15, Martin Peach wrote: > > Well the original post related to [routeOSC] and [unpackOSC] using the > same help file. I did that because [unpackOSC] is fairly useless on its > own and [routeOSC] won't work without [unpackOSC] ahead of it. Also
hmm, i cannot quite follow. i have been using countless full-blown patches using [unpackOSC] without [routeOSC]. if the namespace is rather flat and you don't care for pattern-matching (which i learned to avoid anyhow, as the overhead is often too big), [route] is a nice replacement. of course you don't get the nifty [routeOSC] features, but what do i need them for with [routeOSC /amplitude /gain] ? the other way around it's probably even more interesting. while OSC is often seen as a means to network 2 applications, it is of course more generic. people are known to use OSC messages (or at least: OSC-like messages) for all kind of things, e.g. iirc, SSSAD is using it internally. so [routeOSC] definitely has it's uses without a [packOSC] nevertheless, i am the last to enforce a one-helppatch-per-object. fgamsrd IOhannes
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
