[Dev] 'get' revisited

[jb at integralive.org]

>> > I do agree that it's not strictly necessary, except that I think maybe
>> > it's more semantically explicit to use "get".
>> > Personally (in some non-Integra work) I've been using /get with an
>> > argument to specify a timer interval at which the value should be
>> > auto-reported.
>> >
>>
>> OK, I can see that this is a good reason for using a 'get' message.
>> Perhaps this is something that should be considered for the OSC protocol
>> spec...
>>
> Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing. There is no reason
> why we cannot use the '/get' address for a module. The question is do we
> need a '.get' sub-address. In your example above, Steve, to retrieve the
> value value of the '/get' address you would send '/get.get' (pretty
> confusing ;)).
>

If I understand correctly, I don't think this is what Steve is suggesting,
but rather:

/x/get (get the current value of x)
/x/get 10 (get the value of x every 10 ms)

This was in response to me suggesting that we could do away with /get, and
just have:

/x (get the current value of x)

You would then do something like:

/x/period 10 (get the value of x every 10 ms)

The advantage of this is that you can nicely report on sub-addresses:

/x/period (get the current value of the period)

Whereas with the '/get' syntax for getting an assigned value, you would
need to do:

/x/get/get (get the current get rate)


Jamie