Sorry, maybe I'm blind, but I'm missing a getRoot method for ValueTree.
Should be possible in a few lines of code, if it's not already there. And it would be quite handy.
BTW, ValueTree is guaranted to be acyclic, isn't it?
Thanks, daniel
Yes, it's acyclic.
It's an interesting question as to why, having made very heavy use of ValueTree in many different cases, I've never needed to know the root. I've a feeling that if you need to know the root, there could be some bad design going on, but I can't quite put my finger on why that is. Perhaps explain what the reason is why you need to get it?
Of course you could also easily implement it as a free function, it's a one-liner e.g.
ValueTree getRoot (const ValueTree& v) { return v.getParent().isValid() ? getRoot (v.getParent()) : v; }
You can smell that ;-) It's not really bad design but improvable...
When a leave changes I recalculate the whole tree, that's why I needed the root node. But I probably will optimize it to only recalculate from the parent node on...
I implemented it similar as you propose (just not that elegant...) but I thought, it is a quite common use...
Anyway, I can live without...
Thanks, daniel
No, it's not bad design at all! Using a free function for things like this is totally OK. It's not optimal in terms of implementation, but wouldn't be a problem in practice.
The thing that I wonder about this is why I've never needed to do this. For Components, it's really common to need getTopLevelComponent, but for ValueTrees it just feels wrong somehow.