Newbie needs help on sequence

[CoastalMaineBird]

You're viewing the structure as a single entity.  Why? 

--- Because you place a single entity on the diagram, and it's drawn as a single entity, and no matter how many frames you add, you can drag it around as a single entity.

That goes against the entire purpose of breaking things into frames to begin with.  It'd be crazy for it to act as you suggest.  Once the frame is over, it's over. 

--- the same is true of a stacked sequence, but it doesn't behave that way.

Adding frames is adding a new structure. 

---- It's easy to tell that by behavior, not by appearance.

Visually, it's easier to see it as the "single" structure. 

--- So, it's not actually "crazy" at all...

But, conceptually it's easy to see they're different structures. 

--- Again, that's easy to judge by behavior, not by appearance.

You want to harp on the "not one" idea.  How many other structures can you simply add another piece to at the end?  Can you do that with a while loop?  Can you do it with a for loop? 

--- I don't know what this means.  I can add a frame to a CASE structure or an EVENT structure - it's not adding another structure.

Does the event structure magically add another frame?  No, not one. 

--- Now it's "magic"?  there is no magic here.

The structure with the FSS is the frame.  The output isn't available until the frame completes.  This matches everything else you've seen. 

As much as you're a fan of these structures, 

I don't know why you think I'm a "fan" of the flat sequence, or anything else.  They are tools.

shouldn't you take the time to understand what exactly it is they're doing?

What makes you think I don't understand what they do?  I wrote a little demo to show exactly what they do.

I do understand exactly what it is they do - and I explained it earlier on. And I explained it correctly.

[natasftw]

You place a single entity on the diagram and then must add more to get the extra frames. Dragging together is for ease in editing.

Yet another thing wrong with the FSS. One more reason it shouldn't be used.

Yes, it's still crazy. Don't confuse cosmetics with function. I said it's easy to see it that way. You misunderstood the meaning of that. It meant I can see why you might look at it graphically and see that. I cannot see why you'd want it to function that way. Why would you want to force each frame to happen individually and restrict yourself to aggregate output? It doesn't make sense. You LOSE functionality this way. It's crazy.

You can add a case to a case structure. You can add an event to an event structure. Neither of those changes makes the structure run twice. It's alarming you believe these are similar. A comparable change to a case structure would make it run a second case after the first case. There isn't another structure that behaves like the sequence structure. Not one.

It certainly would be magic on an event structure.

I believe you're a fan because you so vehemently defend their usefulness even in situations where they aren't being used in a way that makes sense. I believe you don't understand the, because you "expect" he, to behave in a way that is less functional than how hey do work. Would you also expect a FSS to max out at a single frame? Would you expect a case structure to only allow two cases? You did show it doing exactly what you say it did. That doesn't show understanding. That shows observation. If someone observes the integral of 2xdx is x^2 and explains the answer without showing the thought process behind finding the solution, does that mean they understand the integral or does it mean they reported on results? Similarly, showing what happens without putting any thought into WHY it happens doesn't show you understand the structure. It shows you've observed the result. This is an important distinction.

[Dennis_Knutson]

I think the distinction that was trying to be made is the difference between a flat sequence structure and the stacked sequence. Nothing at all exits the stacked sequence until all frames complete. The flat sequence is relatively new and the behavior is different. For someone who uses neither very often, the difference can be surprising. I'm not sure of the purpose of your rant.