But why worry about trying to emulate Maya constraints for procedural modelling when there are umpteen different ways to do that in SOPs that we all do day-in and day-out?
Use tools like grabbing point positions or any other attributes with the point() expression. With that, the Attribute Create SOP and some blending functions like modblend I can create many different positions in space and blend between them all. I can orient data to any fixed or dynamic co-ordinate system in so many ways: VEX and VOPs, orient() and other expressions that even handle up vectors for orientation, POPs, CHOPs, even the friggin' compositor can do procedural modelling in real funky ways.
There are the SOPs that form the stock and trade in constraining data: Align SOP, Sweep and Copy SOPs, second input in to Point SOPs, and on and on.
There is a whole world of options to procedurally build data and have any number of dynamic constraints built on whatever rules you want!
Don't limit yourself to “literal” channels. Try to free yourself from that constraint levied on you by Maya and start to use the data and the procedural tools in Houdini to build in any type of relationship you want. Place down some of the above mentioned SOPs and open the help then start parusing the example files. Many a top Houdini user has learned his/her stock and trade from the example files.
I was always mystified by the word “constraint” when I first ran in to it a few years back. I don't see the world as “constrained” but liberated! I use the term “relationship” instead of constraint because it is far more applicable to CG. Yet another Maya funky colloquialism. :x
In Houdini I build relationships between data and parameters that give me what I want, when I want it!
And yes, I am a glass-half-full kind of guy. Wolfwood, JC, Simon and other Houdini users are a glass-overflowing kind of guys!
ops: