TreeSplitter

Comment

Comment by taz on August 27, 2012 at 11:30am

Getting a bit cheeky aren't we?  It's kind of like post-it note art...

Comment by Frans Magnusson on August 26, 2012 at 2:28pm

@Michael

I guess it is not a suitable solution for all situations. Actually I can only think of my own example as a truly useful case :)

Comment by David Rutten on August 25, 2012 at 5:48pm

Well, as long as it works. Don't count on it always working though or keeping on working as I change the way solutions are handled in some future version.

Comment by Andrew Heumann on August 25, 2012 at 3:17pm

It is inside RunScript (which for all I know is highly dangerous, although no errors so far). I'm composing custom xml, calling GH_Archive.Deserialize_Xml and then GH_Archive.ExtractObject to add the components to the document. 

Comment by David Rutten on August 25, 2012 at 3:11pm

Interesting. Are you adding those components inside the RunScript method? I.e. while a solution is in progress?

Comment by Christian Schmidts on August 25, 2012 at 10:22am

interesting development!

Comment by Michael Pryor on August 25, 2012 at 9:32am

@frans, to me this maybe makes sense for params with sigle inputs and outputs, but what happens when there is multiple. There was a discussion about this with David on the forum somewhere. 

Comment by Michael Pryor on August 25, 2012 at 8:58am

you did it :) amazing

Comment by Marios Tsiliakos on August 25, 2012 at 4:07am

Very,, very interesting I can imagine lots of people having difficulties comprehending tree structures that are going to love this. Thumbs up Andrew.

M.

Comment by Frans Magnusson on August 25, 2012 at 3:19am

Would it be possible to use this approach to substitute existing components, but keeping their connections? Let's say I want to replace a slider with a number component or vice versa. 

For me that would be a real improvement in my workflow.

//Frans