yes, well maybe that would have been a better approach, but heh... since you can do functions and even real oo stuff inside now i can't really refrain from (maybe) overusing it... i'm missing the vvvv shader nodes, i guess.
david's opinion on this would come in handy :) what i'm pretty much doing is scripting quite a complex node. is this recommended inside the gh scripting nodes or should i start begging for the knowledge of compiling my own nodes? the former would slow down design process a bit at the same time increasing the latter's speed (my uncultivated guess based on common sense) - this would really open things up for complex tasks. though a bit far fetched, as of late i was considering scripting _only_ in the grasshopper environment... (of course this might be a little to science fiction). i agree on grasshopper's script editor is anything but suited for the job of long scripts, but i really wanna implement this voronoi node (working with david's pdf explanation) for this urbanism project that's shown up in school. so i can drag points around and not have to rebuild the whole solution again :) sorry i talk too much sometimes :) On Nov 29, 6:44 pm, visose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree that the line number would be very handy, but 100 lines of > code in grasshopper? I know it's actually not that much if you where > doing it in rhinoscript for example, but I don't think grasshopper is > the right platform for large chunks of code. Are you sure you can't > divide the scripting component in smaller ones, each doing a specific > task, and maybe doing some of the things with standard components? > > On Nov 29, 3:29 pm, Dimitrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > hm... any chance we're going to have the errors outputing together > > with the corresponding line of code's number? > > it gets quite, say, unproductive :) to search through 100 lines of > > code and try and guess what's wrong and where (especially for a > > inexperienced .net programmer as i am)... dubgging as it is now is > > nearly impossible on larger scripts. > > thanks,d.
