I can see both sides to this, but I hate bundle and unbundle. Cluster elements must have names assigned. Clusters must be bundled and unbundled by name.
PaulG.
LabVIEW versions 5.0 - 2020
“All programmers are optimists” ― Frederick P. Brooks Jr.
I'm all for readability but I can't imagine this will ever catch on. Here's a pretty common use case for clusters where it makes no sense to use named elements:
No, the plain bundle/unbundle nodes have their definite use but nobody forces you to use them.
(On the contrary, I would prefer a third "Name format" for "bundle/unbundle by name" similar to what we have with property nodes (Name format: No Names | Short Names | Long Names). The "by name" tools only have two coices: Hide full names: (Y/N). I would love to be able to convert them to "no names" which would shrink them to the size of the plain bundle tools, but with the advantages of the "by name" versions, such as the ability to not show all terminals, have them not in cluster order, or even have duplicate terminals of the same element. The name would still show when hovering, for example. This might be a seperate idea, though.... :D)
I would prefer a third "Name format" for "bundle/unbundle by name" similar to what we have with property nodes (Name format: No Names | Short Names | Long Names). The "by name" tools only have two coices: Hide full names: (Y/N). I would love to be able to convert them to "no names" which would shrink them to the size of the plain bundle tools, but with the advantages of the "by name" versions, such as the ability to not show all terminals, have them not in cluster order, or even have duplicate terminals of the same element. The name would still show when hovering, for example.
yes, maybe a separate idee ... As you said .... "though"
that said, I very much like this idea a much more overall idea and more powerful
Any idea that has received less than 2 kudos within 2 years after posting will be automatically declined.