On Tue, 2015-11-17 at 10:58 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > On 2015-11-17 10:15, Roman Haefeli wrote: > >> > It seems too complicated to allow it. > > I see. It's not complicated at all on a patch level to make [packOSC] > > allow reentrancy. See attached patch. I can live easily without it being > > fixed in [packOSC]. > > i forgot whether i already mentioned this, but [oscformat] does not have > the reentrancy problem (though there may be plenty of other reasons to > stick with [packOSC])
Thanks for the reminder. I think you already mentioned it. The main reason I stick with [packOSC] (at least for now) is that the whole framework is based on a /this/is/an/address syntax, while [oscformat] uses 'set this is an address'. The only other major difference I can see between the two is that [oscformat] does not support bundles (I don't use them). Roman
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
