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. 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