The suggestion is to enhance the PathMapper to accept using the “*” to make the PathMapper more robust with model changes and avoid having to create multiple mappings as in the following:
Thinking more broadly, it would perhaps be useful to allow more power (similar to the SplitTree mask) in order to map parts of the data tree using the PathMapper.
What do you think?
This would be really helpful for my scripts right now. This is a great idea @rajaa .
To that I would like to have to oportunity to add input variables as path modifiers. Sometimes i need to change paths by adding a number to a path. For example: {a;b} → {a;b+1}. So {a;b} → {a;b+x} (x as a new input variable) would be better. Adding other branches to an exisiting tree structure would be super easy with this change.
+1 on this suggestion! I would really like to see this feature in GH2 as well. The ability to use wildcards like “*” would be fantastic for handling dynamic tree structures efficiently.
Second this suggestion, @DavidRutten !
Added the wish to the pile here…
I think in many cases, when a path-mapping like in the initial post is required, it s a sign to start to reorganise the visual programming definition / spaghetti monster or learn coding / scripting / “real (text based) / classic programming”.
I would love to see a more general discussion on how to get rid of some of this Datatree-Struggle, that also fills 50% of the grasshopper category.
One suggestion that I would love to see, is to allow clusters to have a precise signature / access level (item/list/tree + type hint), same as script components have. see this topic:
this would prevent to have ugly datatrees that need pathmapping.
and would be much closer to classic programming approaches.
