Allow Creating Constant from Control/Indicator

[X.]

Not available in LV 2103.

Why?

Case study:

I may not have a local variable, a PN  or a wire for the type of constant I need in a specific portion of my diagram.

Therefore, since I cannot SEARCH for either a LV or a PN for fear of not being able to easily come back to that part ..., I need to be resourceful.

A simple solution (provided I know where to find it on the FP) would be to go to the FP, select the appropriate control and choose "Create Constant" in order to then be able to drop it onto the diagram (WHERE I want, not randomly, because that would kill the purpose of this suggestion).

Now I know that LV is schizophrenic and you can not let it understand that the FP and BD are basically one and the same thing, but still, I musn't be the only one to bang my head against that infrangible wall!

EDIT: of course, you can COPY the control and PASTE it on the diagram. I am talking about consistency in the Ctrl-Right contextual menu behavior throughout the IDE.

[AristosQueue (NI)]

To be clear... you want to be able to right click on a control on the front panel and choose "Create Constant", which would put a constant under your mouse and flip you to the block diagram to drop it.

Normally, options for creating things not related to the specific control are operations reserved to the block diagram. If we do add "Create Constant", would you expect "Create Control" and "Create Indicator" right click options also on the panel?

[X.]

That would indeed be sweet.

Think of it this way: I right-click instinctively, about to create a Property Node, then immediately change my mind and decide to create a copy of that Control. Now I have to Escape the contextual menu, reselect the control, copy and then move to the destination I want to drop that new object.

I probably just wasted 3 sec, increased my chances of developing carpal syndrome, raised my blood pressure one tick, etc.

😞

As far as creating a control from the BD, I still hate the default (and so far unique) behavior of creating the control towards the boundaries of the panel in a large fraction of my attempts (with the usual result to breaking havoc careful layout of the panel bounds). Why not do exactly as for PN or reference created from the FP (the scenario you described)?

[AristosQueue (NI)]

> I still hate the default (and so far unique) behavior

Historical artifact. We didn't have "place under mouse" when any of that code was written, and we still don't have the ability to create under mouse with an already connected wire. It could be written, but hasn't been. The code that creates things that are never wired uses the "place under mouse" code path. The code that creates things that could get wired does not. It could be improved.

[X.]

This is a graphical language we are talking about, right?

[AristosQueue (NI)]

Yes. What does that have to do with the timeline of feature development?

[X.]

I guess I did not understant what you were saying.

What is the difference between creating a constant and a property node (from a diagram point of view)? Why are you mentioning "never wired things" versus the rest?

A constant or a reference are both wired, are they not?

Yet you can right-click and create a reference, which automatically switches to the BD and allows a nice controlled dropped.

You cannot with a constant.

Are you saying that the constant would be created with the same code that is used on the BD to create a constant from an object? Why would you do such a stupid thing?

That code, BTW, indeed needs some cleanup, because I am tired of ending up with broken wires each time I try to get a constant from whichever BD object and end up having it connected to that object, EVEN THOUGH that object is already wired. What are you thinking? Are you even testing this code?

[emoticon placeholder]

[AristosQueue (NI)]

> A constant or a reference are both wired, are they not?

When you create a constant from a terminal, it is wired for you to the sink terminal. A reference is created unwired. You wanted to know why one had a "place under mouse" behvior and the other had a "created on the diagram" behavior. That is why.

[X.]

AFAIK, a constant is created wired from any sink, not just a terminal. And frustratingly enough even if that sink is already wired. Which creates temporary havoc in a diagram, which then takes time to clean up. And this is a big put off for new and experienced users alike. This is what I call stupid, because it is. And whether you like it or not (and your PM clarified that latter point), it indicates that some things should be changed, and user input (repetitive, vocal at times) seems appropriate for this problem.

It reminds me of the old times when there was no undo in LabVIEW (and no NI forums). I am not even mentioning auto-backup, recovery and all that. At the time, Greg McKaskle responded to one of my posts on info-labview where I was expressing frustration in no uncertain terms despite my broken English and HE used exactly the same kind of rethoric you are using in your PM.

Read Shakespeare. Protagonists express their opinions without any concerns for pretty language or PC.
My reaction is not animosity against your efforts to move LV forward, and it is not "personal". It is practical and technical. You probably wouldn't want me as a collaborator, but you should probably not expect newcomers to tell you that this or that is a problem in LV, because they would not know better. Just read the average LV forum post. The frustrated users never come back. Why? Because they probably moved on to something else (after hopefully completing their undergrad or master project). I have stayed, and I am probably here to stay for a while, because LV helps me in my work.

But do not expect me to mellow with age (if anything, I am of the opposite type, it would appear...).

[RavensFan]

---

@X. wrote:

AFAIK, a constant is created wired from any sink, not just a terminal. And frustratingly enough even if that sink is already wired. Which creates temporary havoc in a diagram, which then takes time to clean up. And this is a big put off for new and experienced users alike.

---

Yes, a constant will be automatically wired to a sink.  But I have never seen it automatically wire to a sink that already has a wire.  I see a constant show up next to the wire but not connected.

So I'm not sure what you are actually complaining about.  You'll need to post a video that demonstrates the behavior you're describing because I've never seen it in my experience.

[Darin.K]

This one bugs me a lot.  I typically have a cluster or class indicator and I want to create a Bundle By Name so I work backwards:

Not a big deal the first hundred or so times, but it does start to wear on you after a while.

That is why I asked for this:

http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/Put-a-created-control-indicator-constant-on-the-cursor...