[Moq] Re: Knowing the start of a Subgroup

[Ian Swett <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for all the responses, particularly Mo's detailed response.

I think we should move forward with the bitfield approach in #1618.

I don't love that both Subgroup ID and Priority are ways of prioritizing
Objects within a Group.  At some point we agreed that priority should only
be a single byte. However, with Subgroup ID as well as priority, we now
have a huge space.  In practice, it probably doesn't matter, and I'm just
overthinking this.  But it seems like there should be a way to
simplify this part of the Object model without restricting any real-world
usecases.

Thanks, Ian

On Fri, May 1, 2026 at 6:14 PM Cullen Fluffy Jennings <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Apr 30, 2026, at 9:08 AM, Ian Swett <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > If we go with the bitflag approach (#1618), are people ok with requiring
> it be set on the first Object in the Subgroup?  Requiring it gives the
> feature a lot more value IMO.
>
>
> Yes, that makes sense to me.