You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If we can't implement a structure listener this way, I'd prefer previous behaviour (emitting an "intermediate" patch with defaultA value used, and then a "final" one) than current (emitting the "final" patch, and removing/adding the same afterwards). However we should fire a structure listener once IMO if both elements are removed from numbers within a CallbackSequencer.
TBH I'm not a fan of both solutions right now. In a test case you've pointed out I'd expect single patch emitted with:
(1, 2), (3, 4), (7, 8), (9, 10), (13, 14)
,(3, 4), (7, 8), (9, 10), (13, 14)
.If we can't implement a structure listener this way, I'd prefer previous behaviour (emitting an "intermediate" patch with
defaultA
value used, and then a "final" one) than current (emitting the "final" patch, and removing/adding the same afterwards). However we should fire a structure listener once IMO if both elements are removed fromnumbers
within aCallbackSequencer
.Originally posted by @bgrochal in #735 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: