https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_Golay_code
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:10 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2017-02-23 02:39, Martin Peach wrote: > > Right now, [unpackOSC] only accepts lists, which must be complete OSC > > packets. I could make it accept lists, > > i think that [unpackOSC] behaves as it should. > esp. i don't think that it should attempt to form packets out of a > bytestream by itself. > > this is clearly the task of a lower-level protocol: > the original OSC-1.0 specs didn't mention any means to do the > packetizing on stream-based protocols (most likely an omission), only > later SLIP was *recommended* (rather than *mandated*) [citation needed]. > afaik, there are still implementations out there that do not use SLIP > for packetizing (but rather prefix each OSC-packet with a 4 byte length > field [citation needed]). > > > or single floats, with no output > > until it has a complete packet or a definite erro > > > the problem with this is, that there is no way to know when an OSC > *bundle* (rather than a message) has finished (if you don't have a > end-of-package marker). > so if you received a time-tagged bundle with two messages A & B, and > immediately after that a plain message C, unpackOSC wouldn't have a way > to auto-sense the difference between B and C (either B would be output > as "immediate" without a timetag, or C would be timetagged; both are wrong) > > fgamf > IOhannes > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ > listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
