Index on "arrayable" clusters

[Lavezza]

Didn't see this suggested yet, sorry if it was.

LabVIEW is smart enough to know if a cluster is "arrayable". If it is, it can be converted to an array.

It would be nice if "arrayable" clusters could be auto-indexed on for/while loops.

I have an instance right now were I would really benefit from auto-indexing but I still need unbundle by name in other sections of code.

[altenbach]

Why would you want to keep your data in such a cluster in the first place? It prevents scaleability. Also, inserting a "cluster to array" before the FOR loop seems like a small price to pay for the convenience and is thus a viable and trivially simple workaround. I don't think we need this.

To keep the universe in balance, implementation of this idea would also require a similar treatment for indexing output tunnels? How would you enfoce the fixed size requirement for the resulting cluster?

[wiebe@CARYA]

A bit late, but there's new evidence 😋.

I have a few places where I can't use arrays. User interfaces where properties of individual 'array' elements have to be changes aren't possible with arrays. So, 'array cluster' it is...

It doesn't happen too often, and when it does it's usually 100% managed with VI Server. This idea might help in these situations.

The new evidence:

Maps and Sets have auto indexing input terminals, but no output indexing equivalent. Clusters could be the same.