jkboyce
Issue: Action of `*` modifier is unclear on multiplex throws/orbits
As noted by Fred Roudaut, the pattern pattern=([22x],2)*;colors=mixed has different orbits than either of these possibilities:
pattern=([22x],2)(2,[22x]);colors=mixed
pattern=([22x],2)(2,[2x2]);colors=mixed
I think that the color model is the one expected. If I'm right, the chosen model is : The first throw done to reach the multiplex is the first orbit of the multiplex.
Thus here are how it colors
-
([22x],2)(2,[22x])
-
([22x],2)(2,[2x2])
-
([2x2],2)(2,[2x2])
-([2x2],2)(2,[22x])
In animation it gives :
-
([22x],2)(2,[22x])
-
([22x],2)(2,[2x2])
-
([2x2],2)(2,[2x2])
-
([2x2],2)(2,[22x])
If we have a look to
- ([22x],2)* : 2 Orbits 2, one Right, one left; and 1 Orbit 2x
- ([2x2],2)* : 3 Orbits 222x.
We then have in jugglinglab :
([22x],2)* <=> ([22x],2)(2,[2x2])
([2x2],2)* <=> ([2x2],2)(2,[22x])
Thus as we may observe with * in Async notation it implies sorting values in reverse order in the next multiplex.
There are not a lot of solutions I guess without adding an extra information : as it is done here, using these sort method or the reverse order or using some Information based on previous throws values as Toukkola's proposal . Anyway, sometimes, it is not enough, when 2 throws from opposite hands (and throws in the multiplex are different) reaching the multiplex has same value. With two hands, since one hand use an X in Sync SS, we may define a sorting rule. With more than 2 Hands in MHN, we may also define a similar rule based on the hand number. In that case the rule will probably be different from the used with only 2 Hands described above.
Otherwise another value has to be linked to the throw that triggered the next multiplex to index the corresponding orbit in the multiplex. In that case, inverting values in the multiplex after a * could be perhaps to rethink . .. It is probably better to keep a symmetry after * .
