Popping and pushing in arrays always work by skimming the stash/stack. That means in an insertion ordered array it will be the last element.
It's convenient that it is so if you think about it. The first element you will always know the index of, therefore you can just retrieve 0 (or 1 if oneindexed), whereas not having a pop would mean you would need to check the array for size before retrieval every time if you wanted the last element. On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Vincent Ullmann < [email protected]> wrote: > You also could use a SelectInArray with Index 0. > Might be the cleaner way. > Indeed the Pop is quite "wrong". I though i would give me the First > Element, not the last. Therefore i was a bit surprised, why i had to > uncheck the Ascending-Bool > > Another approach could be the solution i suggested first. Using a > GetArrayMinimum and FindInArray. > Not sure whats slower. GetArrayMin + FindInArray or SortArrayWithKey > > > > By the Way.... > Here is a little improved Version... getting closest Positions on the > Border-Edges > > > Am 06.05.2013 16:55, schrieb olivier jeannel: > > Super great ! > Why I don't get the SortArrayWithKey and the PopFromArray ? > Is it goaling first to the closest border edge and then to the furthest ? > If so, why do you need the Pop ? > > (Not tested, just reading the tree) > > > > > > > Le 06/05/2013 16:25, Vincent Ullmann a écrit : > > Here is a little Test, of that what i just wrote. > Might be a "bit" clearer ;-) > > > > Am 06.05.2013 16:04, schrieb Paul Griswold: > > Hey guys - > > Is there a way to get the location of the nearest disconnected edge and > set that as the goal for my particles? > > I'm using Eric Mootz's emTV compounds to grow a mesh & I want to attract > particles to the newly created disconnected edges. > > Thanks, > > Paul > > > > > -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
