LabVIEW Idea Exchange

About LabVIEW Idea Exchange

Have a LabVIEW Idea?

  1. Browse by label or search in the LabVIEW Idea Exchange to see if your idea has previously been submitted. If your idea exists be sure to vote for the idea by giving it kudos to indicate your approval!
  2. If your idea has not been submitted click Post New Idea to submit a product idea to the LabVIEW Idea Exchange. Be sure to submit a separate post for each idea.
  3. Watch as the community gives your idea kudos and adds their input.
  4. As NI R&D considers the idea, they will change the idea status.
  5. Give kudos to other ideas that you would like to see in a future version of LabVIEW!
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Smart autocorrecting autoindexing

Tunnels for FOR loops are autoindexing by default. Sometimes this is not the correct option for very obvious reasons and we get a broken wire.

 

The diagram editor should be smart enough to try the "other" option (e.g. no autoidexing) if a broken wire results. If the other option succeeds without a broken wire, it should be used automatically. Maybe the tunnel could "glow" for a few seconds with a small option box (similar to e.g. when pasting into word: keep formatting, text only, etc) that would disappear after a while where we can click and overwrite the automatic handling.

 

The image shows two wires that would be a candidates for autocorrection of the indexing option. In both cases, LabVIEW should disable indexing automatically to avoid broken wires.

 

If both options result in a broken wire, nothing should happen, as before.

 

(Similarly for while loops. e.g. if I wire a scalar across the boundary to an array indicator, it should autoindex.)

 


LabVIEW Champion Do more with less code and in less time
3 Comments
Member

I support this on the input side. I don't like it as much on the output side, because in most cases the output of a for loop should either be an array or a value projected by a shift register, like this:

 

 protect.png

 

I think it's ok to have to force the programmer to manually select "Disable Indexing" to indicate that you really did want to do this and that you know you're going the default value for the type when the loop executes zero times.

Example Gatekeeper
Status changed to: In Beta
 
DNatt, LV R&D
Example Gatekeeper
Status changed to: New
Sorry, I thought this idea pertained to wrapping the code with a loop after creating the wires, and not before. I'll move the idea back to "New".
DNatt, LV R&D