Hmm, it would be really irritating if any macro that one duplicated in a qtz did updates across that given macro if you changed it.
So, if I had a macro that loaded a given 3D model, movie, or picture, duplicated it, then edited the file path in the duplicate macro, the original would change, or vice versa? In my mind, that would be horrible! I don't think that makes much sense, and I would end up spending a ton of time fighting with that kind of implementation. Doesn't sound like a time saver, but the exact opposite, if that was a default behavior. Even if there was some kind of prompting, that kind of workflow would lead to so much prompting that I would feel like I was in Windows hell. Some kind of copy, with a "replace" instead of paste function, if all of a macro's inputs and outputs were the same, would make sense. It would be a little more manual, but it would only be a two click proposition. Many of my compositions tend to start from multiples of what were originally the same macro, that are then tweaked individually, or at least incorporate that workflow somewhere. Having to worry about things changing as I update what was originally a duplicate would be tedious indeed. With all respect intended, if what I'm describing is what is intended, count it in one of the worst ideas for QC ever, at least for anything I've ever done (I definitely count myself as a power user). Best, George On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:42 PM, li...@tobyz <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 Apr 2010, at 16:36, Christopher Wright wrote: > > >> Ok, I have to admit I'm confused about "copied macros are clones". This > is what happens with copy and paste already, no? Do you mean that Virtual > Patches should all be distinct and editable in each qtz without changing the > original virtual patch? > > > > I think what he means is this: You create Macro Foo. You then > copy/paste it (so you have 2 Foos). If you edit _either_ Foo, _both_ are > modified (so in essence, they're the "same" thing, instantiated in 2 > places). Currently, if you modify a macro that has copies (Not a virtual > macro), you modify that instance only. > > > > (if that's not the intent, please set us straight :) > > yes. imho this will make authoring in qc much much simpler and faster for > novices and power users alike. just make that the way qc works, and the > mental overhead currently required in thinking about these things drops to > zero. you wouldn't even need to provide the extra complexity of a 'break > link' command, as you could just select all, copy and paste the contents of > the macro into wherever else you want them (ie. an empty macro). > > and keep virtual macros the separate, largely hidden system-wide power user > feature they are already. > > > -- > > Christopher Wright > > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > 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/gtoledo3%40gmail.com > > This email sent to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ 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]
