(multi-email address smokescreen! ;) > Ah, pity. Bug #8066531 (I wrote it as a bug, and went back to change it to > enhancement request, but couldn't)
This is unlikely to work as well as you'd like -- if your patch is inside a macro, it'll just publish ports to the macro's level, and a host application will not see them. You might be better off with a structure input, if possible -- that will allow arbitrary arrays/dictionaries of data to get piped in without needing individual ports (that won't work so well with the parameters controllers, sadly, but you could isolate the port you're interested in, and make a custom control for it on the application's side -- tedious, but better than nothing). I know your user/use-case is rather technical and special, so the need for generic "works in all kinds of bizarre ways" reasons sound lame and useless. However, designing new parts must take such things into consideration (for better or worse), otherwise it just gets confusing for everyone. Don't worry about the classification, we'll be able to re-class it as necessary. Thanks much for filing the bug/feature request! _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Quartzcomposer-dev mailing list (Quartzcomposer-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/quartzcomposer-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
