04-27-2012 03:26 AM
05-09-2012 01:22 PM
This is one of those rare times where I have few minutes of spare time. Haven't had any of that lately, as witnessed by my absence from the forum. So I will take the opportunity to pitch ONCE MORE for an implementation of a new FOR LOOP option. Right clicking on the border brings up a sub menu where one can choose to switch from the regular For Loop with the N input to a For Loop with three inputs, Start, Stop, and Step size. I once more found a good use for this kind of structure but with the present For Loop I was forced to use shift registers and other logic to form the index. Sorry I don't have enough time to search for and post the link to the original idea, but I'm sure you recall that this was presented more than once.
Please NI, add this functionality to the For Loop. It is available in every text language out there. Why should LabVIEW be lacking this functionality? Again, this would be a right click option. If you want to use the For Loop the way it is (and I would do so most of the time), then you don't have to do anything out of the ordinary. But for those special cases where you need to perform a loop such as:
For N=2 to 20 step 2
It would be so much easier to use the proposed functionality. Come on guys, lets get behind this idea and see if we can get NI to add the functionality to the current For Loop. Eventually you will find it very useful. This would also stop staunch C programmers from saying that their For Loop is better than Labview's For Loop.
05-09-2012 02:28 PM
06-15-2012 11:31 AM
06-18-2012 06:45 AM
To increase the left to right readability i like to put control labels on the left en indicator labels on the right (or top left/right), but that cannot be done by default! What i suggest is simply separate labelling defaults for Controls and Indicators!
06-18-2012 08:06 AM
First of all, I would not consider that an orphan yet. Secondly, it is a duplicate of this idea that has 268 kudos (which is why yours only has 2). Thirdly, it is in Beta. Fourthly, your link is broken.
06-18-2012 08:46 AM
Strange, i didn't get that when i searched for it. Oh well, bump for the other idea!
06-20-2012 12:11 PM
I stumbled upon a couple of older ideas that don't have as many kudos as I think they deserve. Sorry if they are already listed as lonely orphans but I don't feel like clicking all the links in this thread. Maybe I will write a VI someday that takes a URL input and querys this thread returning a Boolean called "Is Lonely Orphan"