> Having said that, I haven't filed a radar. Is there known a reason the QC > team was against this / is there one already I can piggy back to?
It's trivial to abuse, to the point where figuring things out is nigh impossible (I _loved_ trying to figure out compositions that were almost totally noodle-less, with everything embedded in macros with no apparent connectivity -- let me tell you...). That said, there are plenty of ways to paint yourself into a corner on OS X (even as a non-developer), so that's not a valid precedent for stopping it. Should you file a bug, don't be too surprised if it gets marked as a dup, but I can't seem to find one off the top of my head to know for sure. I think the missing "link" is scoping -- in C, a global is "above" all scope (root-macro level) -- in send/receive, you can create globals anywhere, and they're effective everywhere, which is quite unlike C, and more like BASIC or something (the beacon of CompSci abominations). If all the senders were "scoped" in parent macros of their receivers, it might be possible to figure out what's happening. (it'd be a totally synthetic limitation, which I normally deplore, but one that actually maybe makes sense?) _______________________________________________ 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
