Disappearing label oddity

[kruiz17]

Hi X,

LabVIEW will ask to save the type definition as a .ctl so this is an expected behavior. Once you bring the .ctl file to LabVIEW you will notice that the labels are there. You could also create a regular type definition like you did before and re-enable the labels.

I am attaching the .ctl file so you can drag it over to the block diagram. It should display the labels you included in the original cluster constant.

Regards,

kruiz17

[X.]

@kruiz17: First off, you provided a LV 2014 version of your control. I was discussing LV 2013 (although the "problem" I reported also exists in LV 2014).

Second, my post was not about "how can I have the labels displayed in my Typed Def control" but "why do the label disappear".

Third, you did not explain to me why, when I have got a set of options checked off and I make a constant a Typed Def, there is no need to save the type immediately, while if I check off all the options you suggested, then making a constant a Typed Def suddenly requires me to save the corresponding Typed Def control before I can even do anything.

In other words, I was initially pointing to an "oddity" (see the post title?) and now I am facing a bunch more oddities.

I think I am going to call it off at this stage, because clearly that has nobody's attention and this is probably the kind of inconsistencies that lie very low on LV developers' radar.

[natasftw]

---

@X. wrote:

Note: they are actually hidden, as proven by the fact that if I double-click the new typed def constant (to change it into an icon) and then double-click it again (to revert it back to a expanded version), I get this:

---

I'd argue the exact opposite.  If they were hidden, but still there, I would expect expanding it to save their space.  Either way, it's certainly not proof of them being hidden vs removed.

Given your threads that I've seen, I expect most of your concerns are backburner ideas.  You pestered Darrin for pages upon pages of a thread with some intuitive ideas and some you described as "obvious" and simultaneously "not natural."  The issues you worry about are typically cosmetic corner cases rather than something functional.  I hope they focus on functional over appeasing your personal cosmetic preferences.  Even if this gets changed, it's unlikely we will see a fix before next August.  At that point, is it really worth stressing now?

[billko]

---

@natasftw wrote:

---

@X. wrote:

Note: they are actually hidden, as proven by the fact that if I double-click the new typed def constant (to change it into an icon) and then double-click it again (to revert it back to a expanded version), I get this:

---

I'd argue the exact opposite.  If they were hidden, but still there, I would expect expanding it to save their space.  Either way, it's certainly not proof of them being hidden vs removed.

Given your threads that I've seen, I expect most of your concerns are backburner ideas.  You pestered Darrin for pages upon pages of a thread with some intuitive ideas and some you described as "obvious" and simultaneously "not natural."  The issues you worry about are typically cosmetic corner cases rather than something functional.  I hope they focus on functional over appeasing your personal cosmetic preferences.  Even if this gets changed, it's unlikely we will see a fix before next August.  At that point, is it really worth stressing now?

---

But somebody needs to bring these issues up.  Sure, the big problems get the higher priorities, but these issues would be assigned NO priority instead of a lower priority if he didn't bring them up.