On 29 Jul 2009, at 16:55, James Harkins wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Andrea Valle <valle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: What sort of syntax do you have in mind.
I'm prototyping the thing described in attachment. (Actually the examples work here, but I'm in the middle of the operations...).
Interesting, but also has the risk of being Yet Another Abstraction that may not play nicely with others. Don't get me wrong - it's a very cool idea (!), nice bridge for people who are used to Max scripting, but I think a main-library standard solution should be lighter weight and more in line with current object-style usage.
I think nobody wants YAA YAA YAA, although it is kind of catchy...
What if we adapted the node ordering logic from MixerChannel to nodes? You would do:
sourceNode.sendsSignalTo(receiverNode);
Isn't sendsSignalTo effectively just a synonym for moveAfter then?
And information is then stored in the node object that the reordering code would use to make sure sourceNode is always earlier. Break the connection with:
So you just want something that provides clues for a generic reordering object? Hmm...
This is something we should proceed with very carefully I think. The danger of making too many assumptions about how people will work is pretty high I'd guess. To 'light-weight' and 'in line with current object-style usage' I'd add 'surprisingly elegant' as a good criterion. Like observer pattern elegant.
Maybe something that works like a decorator, i.e. add it if you want and it just works, ignore it if you don't.
S. |