On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 10:17:50PM -0800, Daniel Rogers wrote: > Calvin Williamson wrote: > > One good example is if you have an Op with inputs that are animated > > parameters. This is the main case I can think of that would be > > useful actually. > > > > For example you might have a animated spline curve or some animated > > scalar parameter (like frame number or time) that you want to pass > > to an Op. One way to do this is to attach as input an op that > > outputs your animated param. > > > > This is pretty standard technique for things like scenegraphs > > or hypergraphs (like maya) to get animation engines into > > the graph, and that is why it would be good to make it > > work for gegl too. > > > > Though it is extra work, I think you have to be able to pass > > other data along the graph to cover these kinds of animated > > param nodes. > > The purpose of a graph is to express algebraic relationships between > different data types. This is where I have trouble finding examples of > where we would best be served by generalizing data inputs. When would > you want to use this infrastructure to, say, add two scalars, or take > the dot product of two vectors. You might use some kind of object to > generate your animation parameters, but you don't need all this > algebraic stuff to do that. > Im not sure what you are talking about when you say you dont need all this "algebraic stuff". What exactly are you referring to? Calvin
