I have two data trees:
IDX (for indices):
{0} = (N = 3) (e.g. 1, 3, 4)
{1} = (N = 2) (e.g. 5, 6)
ADJ (for adjacency matrix):
{1} = (N = 5)
{2} = (N = 6)
{3} = (N = 7)
{4} = (N = 8)
{5} = (N = 9)
{6} = (N = 1)
…
Now, I want to us IDX to access branches of ADJ by index
[I Want] My resulting tree would be
{0:1} = (N = 5)
{0:3} = (N = 7)
{0:4} = (N = 8)
{1:5} = (N = 9)
{1:6} = (N = 1)
That is, branches IDX{0} retries from ADJ stays in a separate branch from what IDX{1} retrieved
[I Don’t Want] The problem is, when I do Tree Branch with Tree=ADJ, Path=IDX, the output is actually:
{1} = (N = 5)
{3} = (N = 7)
{4} = (N = 8)
{5} = (N = 9)
{6} = (N = 1)
It is as though my IDX got flattened on the way in! I get the same result even if I Graft IDX
Could you please give me some guidance on getting my desired result?
I agree with you, also about the always flattened behavior of Tree Branch
if you are open to using plugins, there’s a super helpful set of “grouping” components in Metahopper, that allow you to group any king of data the very same way the Group component works on geometries
