due_friday

I tried looking in the forums if anyone ever complained about this, but [route] processes its list of matches from left-to-right – NOT right-to-left.

This has the implication, that if you want to route an int but also have a specific integer you're matching in the same list of arguments, the output is done from left-to-right – NOT right-to-left.

print

message

route

While this is not a huge deal, it does create an inconsistency that is annoying and could potentially make patches work wrongly if not checked correctly.

I tried looking in the forums if anyone ever complained about this, but [route] processes its list of matches from left-to-right – NOT right

«route»-violates-max'-right-to-left-message-ordering

Maybe, but if I was going to do what you are doing in this patcher I would probably use select or trigger. I guess I don't see why you have to use route for that.

These kind of things won't get "fixed" typically, as they have been this way forever and the "fix" would likely cause more problems to existing Max code.

I mean, you're perfectly right: changing this now would potentially cause problems with existing code. But, I keep bumping into inconsistencies with Max over the years (for example, for the love of Shannon, make up your mind if you want to be a 0 or 1 base index language!) and I thought I'd finally start reporting on things like this, especially if there is no mention of a topic in the forums, yet.

I striped the example down to the absolute necessary. In my real patch, first of all, I would have a list that I actually want to route and secondly select does not match against all numbers with a single argument. (...right?)

Sure I worked around it... but I first I had to notice there was something off and had to spend time debugging it. I mean, in the 10 years using Max this was the first time I had to do something like this. There is a good reason I use Max and I like it, but it would be even more fun if things could be cleaned up and made more consistent... just saying and reporting :)

I mean, you're perfectly right: changing this now would potentially cause problems with existing code. But, I keep bumping into inconsistencies with Max over the years (for example, for the love of Shannon, make up your mind if you want to be a 0 or 1 base index language!)  and I thought I'd finally start reporting on things like this, especially if there is no mention of a topic in the forums, yet.

I striped the example down to the absolute necessary. In my real patch, first of all, I would have a list that I actually want to route and secondly select does not match against all numbers with a single argument. (...right?)

Sure I worked around it... but I first I had to notice there was something off and had to spend time debugging it. I mean, in the 10 years using Max this was the first time I had to do something like this. There is a good reason I use Max and I like it, but it would be even more fun if things could be cleaned up and made more consistent... just saying and reporting :)

All these issues (yes the base 1 thing for sure!) should be fixed, no doubt. Every time I teach Max, a whole slew of new users need to deal with basic mistakes.

If backwards compatibility is an issue, there can be a flag to designate this purging of inconsistencies.

All these issues (yes the base 1 thing for sure!) should be fixed, no doubt. Every time I teach Max, a whole slew of new users need to deal with basic mistakes. 

If backwards compatibility is an issue, there can be a flag to designate this purging of inconsistencies. 

[route] violates Max' right-to-left message ordering