I agree with Damien. It's not more logical to convert to 'mid point' than 'end point', I can't think of a 'more logical' case for any of those examples. I like it when the software responds logically and doesn't make assumptions that could have been any sort of things. It makes the software less intuitive and I tend to forget what it actually did (was it mid point? end point?). Right now grasshopper responds very "logically" to everything, I don't feel I have to second guess the programmer. I like for example that a line converts directly to a vector, that makes sense, there's only one conversion you'd expect.
The downside of not assuming anything is that it will take longer for the user to achieve the most common tasks. The upside is that you avoid the painful "workarounds" this causes when you want to create something that is not exactly what the programmer intended (I'm thinking of Revit, but any other complex enough software will do). Grasshopper is far from that right now, though. On Jan 23, 7:33 pm, David Rutten <[email protected]> wrote: > Does it make sense to anyone to have default conversions for: > > Curve -> Point (start point? mid point? end point? centre of > bounding box?) > Surface -> Point (centre of bounding box? centre of UV domain?) > Brep -> Point (bounding box centre? Volume/Area centroid?) > Mesh -> point (?) > Box -> Point (... etc. etc.) > Twisted Box -> Point > Generic Geometry -> Point > > And, if so, how would you expect it to work? > > Thanks, > David > > -- > David Rutten > [email protected] > Robert McNeel & Associates
