create subVI from single wire

[Ben]

---

@X-) wrote:

That was precisely my point. I know how to create a dummy subVI by dropping a sequence on the diagram, but you still need to draw the wire through the sequence (that involves at least three clicks).

My question was rather whether anybody else besides me thought having the possibility to create a VI from a single selected wire (or several for that matter - I just checked that this does not work either) would be useful.

I am glad to have the support of one of the Knights of NI. Off to the LabVIEW idea exchange I am...

---

I'll back you up on that suggestion.

I do that all of the time...

ctrl-space (QD window)

ss (my short cut for seq, Structures Sequence)

and then the three click to wire it through followed by a click and a delete to get rid of the original wire.

So creating a sub-VI from a wire would save me all of that work.

Ben

[RavensFan]

I think the functionality of whether to include a wire in a subVI is the same as whether to include a wire when you put in a sequence structure or loop type structure.  And that was asked for here  http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/Create-automatic-wire-through-in-a-flat-sequence-struc....

I bet the reason a wire isn't automatically put in is this.  When you have objects such as a function, terminal, existing case structure, you can analyze the wire connections to determine whether they are inside or outside of the boundary you are drawing.  If one wire end is inside and another outside, you can determine the wire is crossing the boundary and you can create a tunnel at the boundary.

If you have a single wire, but both wire ends outside the boundary, which is the situation you are dealing with here, it is more difficult to determine whether the wire is actually passing through the boundary.  And some of the comments that are made in the Idea I linked to apply here as well.  I think the scenario gets even more difficult to determine if you are dealing with a wire with multiple branches, or several segments in a branch.

I don't think any of these issues would be unsolvable.  But is it a problem that is worth solving?

[Ben]

---

@Ravens Fan wrote:

...

I don't think any of these issues would be unsolvable.  But is it a problem that is worth solving?

---

R&D once told me that if there was anything I do regularly that could be automated to save me time, they want to hear about it. I shared my idea along with some of the other Champions and the next thing you know the LabVIEW Idea exchange was a reality.

Its out job to come up with the ideas. It's NI's job to ignore them.

Ben

[X.]

@ Ravens Fan: I don't understand how what you are describing is related to what I was suggesting.

The idea has been submitted here. I agree it is definititely not high priority, but it should not be difficult for NI to implement.

[Mark_Yedinak]

---

@X-) wrote:

@ Ravens Fan: I don't understand how what you are describing is related to what I was suggesting.

The idea has been submitted here. I agree it is definititely not high priority, but it should not be difficult for NI to implement.

---

I agree that this probably would be rather easy for NI to do. However, what appears simple to us on the outside is not always that easy on the inside. NI does some incredible stuff under the hood to make LabVIEW easy for us to use.

[RavensFan]

---

@X-) wrote:

@ Ravens Fan: I don't understand how what you are describing is related to what I was suggesting.

The idea has been submitted here. I agree it is definititely not high priority, but it should not be difficult for NI to implement.

---

I'm saying whatever secret sauce that the programmers who created LabVIEW use to determine whether a function or wire is included inside a structure when you go to add the structure around existing code is most likely the same sauce they use to determine what functions and code get put into a subVI when you use the create subVI menu choice.  It seems to me like it has to be the same process.  The wire doesn't get included in flat sequence structure (as you pointed out yourself), and it doesn't get included in the subVI.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't think your idea is a bad idea.  I'm just searching for a reason as to why things are the way they are now, and also whether I think it is important to me that the behavior be changed.

I don't think the idea of making a subVI out of a single wire is a worthwhile idea.  However, I can see a point that if you are making a subVI that really does something, and a part of that selection is a single wire that needs to pass through, that there is a convenience factor if that wire gets included in the subVI.

[Ben]

---

@Ravens Fan wrote:

---

@X-) wrote:

@ Ravens Fan: I don't understand how what you are describing is related to what I was suggesting.

The idea has been submitted here. I agree it is definititely not high priority, but it should not be difficult for NI to implement.

---

I'm saying whatever secret sauce that the programmers who created LabVIEW use to determine whether a function or wire is included inside a structure when you go to add the structure around existing code is most likely the same sauce they use to determine what functions and code get put into a subVI when you use the create subVI menu choice.  It seems to me like it has to be the same process.  The wire doesn't get included in flat sequence structure (as you pointed out yourself), and it doesn't get included in the subVI.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't think your idea is a bad idea.  I'm just searching for a reason as to why things are the way they are now, and also whether I think it is important to me that the behavior be changed.

I don't think the idea of making a subVI out of a single wire is a worthwhile idea.  However, I can see a point that if you are making a subVI that really does something, and a part of that selection is a single wire that needs to pass through, that there is a convenience factor if that wire gets included in the subVI.

---

My dream was to be able to select both the error cluster wire and a class wire and use the drop-down "Create new Method".

Just sharing idea and not trying to change anyone's mind.

Ben

[X.]

Now that you bring that up... I think that I would also like that when a sequence structure (or a case structure, etc) is dropped on top of wires, there would be an option to get those wires to go through the structure (maybe an ALT or SHIFT key option?). Then I would almost be ready to give up on the selected wire/subVI suggestion

[Ben]

Post a link and I'll Kudo that one as well.

Ben

[X.]

At your order! Posted here.