On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 09:39:31AM -0800, Matt Wright wrote:
> When we wrote that part of the OSC Spec, we were thinking
> of the case in which an OSC Method doesn't need to know
> the address through which it was invoked, i.e., "usual"
> cases like setting a parameter. That's why the spec
> doesn't mention sending either the expanded or unexpanded
> OSC address to a handler --- sorry about that.
>
> Why not simply always send both? That seems more general
> and easier to understand than a special case, at least for
> me.
Well, that would require changing the API, which is a Bad Thing, and there
is a user_data parameter than can encode that kind of contextual
information when its needed. Also, the method callback functions are too
complicated allready :)
- Steve
Received on Mon Mar 28 04:15:15 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 28 2005 - 04:15:17 EEST