The foundation is basically there with the network broadcaster/receiver (image broadcaster/receiver), it's mainly that stock patch options grind to a halt with structures. So, there is already a kind of buyer beware precedence for being able to achieve "out of order"ness with a stock patch.
The limitation you describe does make sense, but I can't help but wonder if then people don't just end up chaining multiple of the theoretical patch together (hmm, maybe that isn't bad... it forces people to be mindful and think out what they are doing, and would still allow to keep shuffling the info out). I came into scenario where you have to use Spooky, if you use an iterator and interaction to create multiple points, and then want to create a structure of the interaction placements using a queue to be rendered outside of the queue, since the interaction necessitates that the renderer be present in the same iterator. -George Toledo On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Christopher Wright < christopher_wri...@apple.com> wrote: > > 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/gtoledo3%40gmail.com > > This email sent to gtole...@gmail.com >
_______________________________________________ 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
