If you right click on the 'Random' component, you will find an option for "Integer Numbers".
You might need to generate random integers of 3, 4, 5 or 6 and multiply that by ten?
sequence
Ok, then yes, but still, the next case. We have 20 curves, 0 and 19 are the same. You do 4 sublists of 5 crvs and uses RemDupCrvs. The index 0 and 19 will never be in the same branch (so dont be deleted except if at the end you flatten everything) whereas the comparison of curves with indices 0 and 1 has been calculated as many times as you have repeated that process. But I do not know the reason for the increase in speed actually.…
es in List 0 reference the same point, and are not null as you can see.
I haven't been able to find any workarounds. I thought it was a referencing problem, so I tried decomposing the point, recomposing it, duplicating it six times, grafting and putting those into the merge, but I got the same result.…
Added by Andy Edwards at 3:49pm on October 28, 2009
ow do you sort data trees with distinctive number of list items in each branch?
In this example, there are 161 branches with three distinctive number of list items, 3, 4, and 5. I want to know if there is another way to sort out this data tree into this way: 3 vertices {0;0}, {0;1}, {0;2],...4 vertices {1;0}, {1;1}, {1;2},... 5 vertices {2;0}, {2;1}, {2;2},...
2. Is there a way to sort our surfaces based on number of distinctive list items automatically? For example, if there are surfaces with 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 vertices, I want to make five branches with the same number of vertices automatically.
I hope my questions make sense...
Thank you!
Dongyeop …
Added by Dongyeop Lee at 12:14pm on October 3, 2016
ld be the best UI.
I think difference is made by 'Slider = 10' vs 'Slider = 10.000' more than by simple input/component initialization so, why to stop when it could be even more powerful?
Slider = 0 To 5 --- Slider in [0, 5]
Slider = {3; 0 To 5}
Slider = {3;0;5}
Slider = 3;0;5
Slider = 3 0:5
Slider = 3,0,5
Slider = 3 0 5 --- Value and range (min max)
3 0.0 5 --- 3.0 0.0 5.0
3 0 5.0 --- 3.0 0.0 5.0
3.0 0 5 --- 3.0 0.0 5.0
-1 0 5 --- 0 0 5 (-1 -1 5)
6 0 5 --- 5 0 5 (6 0 6)
Slider = 0:2:6 --- Even numbers: 0, 2, 4, 6.
Slider = 1:2:7 --- Odd numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7.
0:2:5 --- 0:2:4 (or 0:2:6)
3:2:8 --- 3:2:7 (or 3:2:9)
3 1:2:7 --- 1 3 5 7 (value 3)
Bang! = 7 --- 7 outputs
Merge = 5 --- 5 inputs
What's your opinion about Bang! = 7? As it's setting number of inputs, should it use different format? Bang! 7? Bang! (7)? Bang! i7?
+ * - / \ % ^ & | ! = > --- Addition, Multiplication, Subtraction, Division, Integer Division, Modulus, Power, AND, OR, NOT, Larger than, &c.
= could be a problem.
\ Integer division or Set difference?
! could be NOT but also Factorial.
| could mean intersection.
& could mean concatenate.
1+ --- Addition: input A = 1
2* --- Multiplication: input A = 2
+{0,1,1} --- Addition: input B = {0,1,1}
0-, 1/, 2^, 10^, e^ have their own components
Flatten = {7} or Flatten = 7 --- Input P = {7} (off-topic: Why can’t P be a list?)
Pt = {1, 2, 3} --- Point XYZ, X = 1, Y = 2, Z = 3.
Swatch = 129,239,231 (102)
Swatch = 129 139 231 102
F2 = "x^2+y"
"List Length" and "List Insert" don't work properly: "Value List" is choosen. Why? What's the reason to this choice? Well, I'd like to know how the whole thing (search by keywords) works, David.
Name and nickname can be now used as keywords. "Larger" works for ">" but "greater" doesn't. Could it be improved? Could synonyms be used? Could a short description even be used (I know this could be a bit weird)?
more than --- >
more or less --- Similarity
more less --- Similarity
red green --- Sets.List components should be showed
lightning --- Split Tree
What about use Curve.Analysis or Math.Boolean to display those Tab.Panel components? Param, Math, Sets, Vector? Primitive, Special, Util? Tab, Panel, and Tab.Panel as keywords.
At the moment that I write this, I check that ignoring accents in keywords has almost been included (0.8.0009): p`anel, pañel, pánel --- panel (almost)
Shouldn’t 'Dom2' work for Dom²?
What about nested search? You type some keywords (say 'Params' or 'Params.Geometry', or 'red green', or 'lst') and then you make a fine-tunning search over previous results/keywords. Tab.Panel and/or nested geometry could be useful when search by plug-in is desired or when you want to search among .ghuser components (first 'ghuser' or 'Extra.MyPlugIn' or 'lst' keyword and then fine-tunning, specific, search).
Is 'list length' performing this nested search right now ('lst' > 'length')? Anyway, I am thinking about UI (graphical) changes; successive searches.
As I said, description (and even words from the help info) could be used to search. What about "some kind of tags"? I mean that if 'list l' to finally choose List Length has been used for a while, that could be learned. Eventually, an XML file could store these tags, so you could even edit them. That could implement description, name, nickname, help info, Tab.Panel, .ghuser, synonyms (lots of them), tags/shortcuts or wathever.
How could flatten/graft/reverse be used? Initialize graft+Simplify or graft+Bang! could be really useful.
What about expressions? I don't how could it be done properly: would Slider = x^2 (expression) work? I mean, aren't expressions parsed when initializing?
Is Panel somehow doing this? 'panel = wathever' always suppose that wathever is a string, so you can't use 'panel = <pi>'. Sets.Strings components also do this.
I've been about to write several paragraphs about height/width (resizable components: Panel, Graph Mapper, Slider, &c.), input/output names (Scripts, F components; or any component with editable input/output names), orientation (Scribble), type hint and access option, nickname, &c. but, to sum up: being able to set any property when initializing would be really useful. I'd like to know the best choice of syntax but I'm sure that, David, you're closer to the answer. What do you think about this?
Slider: 3 0 5 "MySlider" "Slider^2"
Panel: "This is the content" "This is the title"
VB: "N" List Integer 7 "r" Item Double
Addition: A 1 B 2
I guess that any unified syntax would be elegant and useful, but additional ad hoc syntax (per component) could be even better (cleaner).
What about use lists of values? I'm not sure about format: panel = ("Hello", "Bonjour", "Hola")? If any valid format/syntax is found, maybe more sophisticated fetaures could be achieved: panel = {0;0} ("A", "B", "C") {0;1} ("1", "2", "3") How would you like this to be implemented?
There is a much simpler and interesting feature that would be useful, in my opinion: being able to initialize more than one component. I mean say 7xSlider = 10.0 and get 7 sliders and I also mean multiline (multi-component) initialization: Ctrl+Intro when you want to start a new line and Intro (or even some Accept/Cancel buttons when you activate multiline mode) to initialize (every line/component), for example. I mean:
3 x Slider = 1
Panel
Mass addition
Panel
And the whole bunch of components that were in mind (pre-thinked definition) is initialized. It speeds up the workflow, making more dynamic to add components that are only available via the drop-down panels.
Should this multiplier be something like a text box adjacent to search field more than '7x'?
These are some of my thoughts about intitializing. Please let me know your opinion :]
…
,{0;2},{0;3},{0;4},{0;5}... and I want to get {0;0},{1;0},{2;0},{3;0},{0;1},{1;1}... I already have these latest values within another list (see JPG attached).
THX!!…
Is it like this:
If a beam is connected from nod 0 to 1 and from 1 to 4. Another from 2 to 3 and from 3 to 5.
Node 1 and 3 have the same coordinates, but are they rigidly connected or not?
s {0} with 0/1/2 and the values 1/1/1
{1} with 0/1/2 and the values 2/2/2
{2} with 0/1/2 and the values 3/3/3
Second data set contains 3 items {0} with 0/1/2 and the values A/A/A
{1} with 0/1/2 and the values B/B/B
{2} with 0/1/2 and the values C/C/C
After merging the 2 data sets i need as result one data set with 6 items {0} with 0/1/2 and the values 1/1/1
{1} with 0/1/2 and the values 2/2/2
{2} with 0/1/2 and the values 3/3/3
{3} with 0/1/2 and the values A/A/A
{4} with 0/1/2 and the values B/B/B
{5} with 0/1/2 and the values C/C/C
How can i realise this?…