LabVIEW Idea Exchange

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Miraz_Automation

Make ctrl+click swap the wires on the top and bottom terminals of "In Range and Coerce" function

Status: New

"In Range and Coerce" function should have swap terminal option. The upper and lower limit shall get swaped.

 

swap.png

With Regards

Miraz
Kudos is better option to thank somebody on this forum
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Comments
RavensFan
Knight of NI

Can you be more clear?  Do you want the "switcheroo" tool to work on this?  Or something that shows up in the right click menu to do swap the wires themselves?  (I'd agree with switcheroo, a right click option would not be needed if the switcheroo was implemented.)

 

Or are you talking about a setting where the function interprets whatever is wired into the upper terminal the lower limit and vice versa?  (Which I would not agree with at all.)

Miraz_Automation
Member

Yes I am expecting a switchroo functionality, I was not recollecting the name and it was difficult to take snap of that functionality with some other function.

 

Thanks RavensFan for helping. I think that functionality will help to switch between limits easily, rather than breaking and joining the wires.

With Regards

Miraz
Kudos is better option to thank somebody on this forum
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K C
Trusted Enthusiast

Switching the upper and lower limit is very confusing. The Icon should also change otherwise you cannot see what is upper or lower limit input.

Beside that the diagram becomes less readable.

 

So I don't like this idea.

crossrulz
Knight of NI

Just like what was done for the Select function?  My initial reaction is that I like the idea, but I have some reservations since the center input is of the same type as the limits.


GCentral
There are only two ways to tell somebody thanks: Kudos and Marked Solutions
Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines
"Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God" - 2 Corinthians 3:5
RavensFan
Knight of NI

I'll kudo the idea for allowing the "Switcheroo" tool to work on this function as well.

AristosQueue (NI)
NI Employee (retired)

KC: As clarified in his later comment, the request would not switch the meaning of the node, just which wires are connected where. Just like on Subtract it doesn't switch to subtracting bottom from top.

K C
Trusted Enthusiast

Yes I understand this now. Makes the Idea better, but still for the other primitives I use this option but I don't think I will need this option for this one

Mads
Active Participant

I think most people will find it logical that the lower end of the range is defined at the bottom, and the higher at the top. So even if you changed the icon to try to signal that there has been a change, it would easily be overlooked. The nodes that already have the switcherro-functionality are not subject to the same preconceptions.

 

(Rant: Expected behaviour can vary though; I'm always surprised that Asian cars want you to move the windscreen wiper control UPwards to *reduce* the speed. And they display controls for things that control things in the REAR above the controls that control things that are located in the front. European cars do the exact opposite, which seems much more logical to mee. HTC used to make their cell phone touchscreens interpret hard/soft presses/taps the exact opposite of touch screens on Apple-phones for example, really frustrating.)

RavensFan
Knight of NI

Mads,

 

The OP is not suggesting changing the way the function works.  (That was unclear in the original post.)

 

He is asking for a method to swap the wires without having to manually break and rewire the nodes.  He is asking for the switcheroo tool to work on this function as well.

tst
Knight of NI Knight of NI
Knight of NI

In somewhat related news, I *was* suggesting changing the behavior of the node, although it wasn't to swap the inputs, but rather to treat both of them equally and to just look at the actual values wired into them. As can be seen, it wasn't particualrly popular - http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/In-Range-and-Coerce-should-be-more-forgiving/idi-p/252...

 

Mads, in case you're wondering, the thinking behind something like this is in phrasing the question as "Is X between A and B?". When you think of it like this and look at the inputs from top to bottom, it then makes more sense that the lower value should go into the top input. This isn't necessarily something well thought out - it's just an instinctual response and I have seen others who have reacted the same. Most of the time it doesn't happen to me.

 

As a side note, I personally don't really assign any logic to how the wiper setting works. This might be because I don't drive much, because I live in a country with relatively little rain or because I often drive different types of cars, so I'm already used to them behaving differently and don't particularly mind that I need to figure out how to operate each one.


___________________
Try to take over the world!