*(and calling main a bunch makes you look like a terrible programmer, even if you do manage to get it right somehow ;).*
No! Wasn't taking about recursive calling of functions (Main Function or any other)… just clearing up whether making the call to an external function (from *any* *other* function) had anything to do with coercing the cloning and fixing the reference problem or it's just a matter of getting to the lowest child level of the structure before assigning a varibale. I've never actually got a recursive function to work in JS yet. I got an error last time I tried it (Stack overflow from memory) but I was not controlling how many times it executed just performing a "goto 10" type of thing. *I don't think I've seen that -- If you can find some code that works in one place, but not another, I'd be interested to see it (the code and the composition). 10.4 to 10.5 saw some radical changes to how JS was implemented, and confusion there would make it act weird, but otherwise JS is pretty robust, and shouldn't be too inconsistent (I mean, it's the /exact same/ engine that's driving safari -- that gets billions of hours of runtime and testing, so any quirks like that would be quick to isolate). Not saying there aren't bugs, just that there are many more subtle user-error things that usually come into play, esp in an environment like QC where the rules aren't always explicitly clear (like no modifying inputs, or testmode, for example).* * * *I'll dig it out one day when time permits. Seems to happen quiet a bit to me, but like you said, could simply be subtle errors. Toneburst confirmed to me he finds JS patch can go south on him too. I guess I shouldn't be making this claim without documentation, especially when I'm making newb errors so lets leave it until I can assemble the proof!* On 12 April 2010 01:40, Christopher Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes okay, so I can do this kind of iteration in the main function (often I >> do it that way but sometimes in a function call) and still get cloning not >> referencing right? >> > > Correct -- you'll want this to be a function outside of main, since its > final incarnation will almost certainly be recursive (and calling main a > bunch makes you look like a terrible programmer, even if you do manage to > get it right somehow ;). > > > Yeah an old screen shot saved me on my last project ;) One day I would >> like to get to the bottom of that. I was able to write the JS in a fresh >> patch carefully testing for parsing as I went and I got it functioning but >> the exact same text was jamming in another JS patch no matter how much I >> retyped it. I feel the JS patch is a little illogical at times (as in it >> gets broken), if that's a good way to put it. >> > > > I don't think I've seen that -- If you can find some code that works in one > place, but not another, I'd be interested to see it (the code and the > composition). 10.4 to 10.5 saw some radical changes to how JS was > implemented, and confusion there would make it act weird, but otherwise JS > is pretty robust, and shouldn't be too inconsistent (I mean, it's the > /exact same/ engine that's driving safari -- that gets billions of hours of > runtime and testing, so any quirks like that would be quick to isolate). > Not saying there aren't bugs, just that there are many more subtle > user-error things that usually come into play, esp in an environment like QC > where the rules aren't always explicitly clear (like no modifying inputs, or > testmode, for example). > > > -- > [ christopher wright ] > [email protected] > http://kineme.net/ > >
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Quartzcomposer-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/quartzcomposer-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
