Dear testers, it has become clear that the definition for Grasshopper files (*.wrm) is causing more and more problems as the versions progress. Although technically it is flawless, infinitely flexible and very efficient, it's just too darn easy for humans to make mistakes while writing reading/writing code.
This probably means we'll have to redesign the format from the ground up (while maintaining reading capacity for old files of course) and we have a number of options open to us. Some of you have expressed opinions about this in the past so I thought it prudent to ask before retreating to my coding-cave. What we can do: 1) Make the format human readable. I.e. store it as plain text or XML. Or at least have a flavour that is human readable, we could support both binary and XML files with the same code. 2) Make the format open source. I.e. the logic that reads and writes Grasshopper files could be a separate project which can be referenced by other applications. Or, if not open source, at least share the dll that would be required to read/write grasshopper files. 3) .... any thoughts/suggestions/brain-dumps/complaints/well-wishes are welcome -- David Rutten Robert McNeel & Associates
