Re: Maths Expression Error (Or Feature)

Subject: Re: Maths Expression Error (Or Feature)

From: Adrian Ward <email@hidden>

Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:10:37 +0100

Delivered-to: email@hidden

Hi alx,

Try using parenthesis to remove the ambiguity from your _expression_:

((IntegratorResult < Min) && (Value < 0)) ? 0 : (((IntegratorResult > Max) && (Value > 0)) ? 0 : Value)

In particular, I think where you nest a ternary _expression_, you need to enclose it in parenthesis. I use this technique all the time and I agree, it beats breaking out another JS patch.

Best,

On 7 Jul 2009, at 10:52, Alex Drinkwater wrote:

Does the Mathematical _expression_ patch not work with nested ternary logic?

This:

(IntegratorResult < Min && Value < 0) ? 0 :(IntegratorResult > Max && Value > 0) ? 0 : Value

doesn't produce the desired effect when connected to/from an Integrator patch (it looks like only the second conditional is evaluated), whereas the same logic in a _javascript_ patch:

function (__number ToIntegrator)
main
(__number Value, __number Min, __number Max, __number IntegratorResult)
{
var result = new Object();
result.ToIntegrator = (IntegratorResult < Min && Value < 0) ? 0 :
(IntegratorResult > Max && Value > 0) ? 0 : Value;
return result;
}

works fine.

Is this a known limitation of the Mathematical _expression_ patch, and if so, is there some workaround to avoid the overhead of using a JS patch?

I've attached a little demo QTZ to show the two methods in action.

Cheers,

a|x
http://machinesdontcare.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Quartzcomposer-dev mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/quartzcomposer-dev/email@hidden This email sent to email@hidden

References:

>Maths Expression Error (Or Feature) (From: Alex Drinkwater <email@hidden>)