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
Currently only the nodegraphs that are node implementations gets treated as separate function definitions. Nodegraphs that are just "compounds" are instead traversed through, extracting their nodes, when constructing the ShaderGraph to generate code from.
If we treated all nodegraphs as seprate function definitions it would simplify code generation. It would also avoid issues with name collisions for nodes inside vs outside a graph, if all nodegraphs resulted in separate ShaderGraph instances.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently only the nodegraphs that are node implementations gets treated as separate function definitions. Nodegraphs that are just "compounds" are instead traversed through, extracting their nodes, when constructing the ShaderGraph to generate code from.
If we treated all nodegraphs as seprate function definitions it would simplify code generation. It would also avoid issues with name collisions for nodes inside vs outside a graph, if all nodegraphs resulted in separate ShaderGraph instances.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: