Visual indication that a constant is linked to TypeDef

[Broken_Arrow]

I would like to be able to see that a constant is linked to a typedef without clicking it, especially enums.

This could be a light border around the constant, marching ants, or a flag of some type such as the example I have posted. You can quickly tell that the top enum is not linked to a typedef, whereas the bottom one has the little "td" flag.

 

[tst]

One thing that's not clear from your mockup is whether or not the elements inside the cluster and the array are typedef'd or not. For clarity and consistency, I would say that if the array element is typedef'd, then every element in the array should be marked. The main problem with that is that it would probably create a lot of noise.

Another point is that placing the marker on the top right corner might conflict with creating reference which point to the typedef (such as DVRs or queue refs). This may not be a big problem (especially on the diagram, where you probably see the icon for these less), but it's something to consider.

Having the indication on terminals (and probably locals as well) is probably useful.

[Broken_Arrow]

Wonger,

It's great that this is getting some attention at NI, thanks.

I would like to see something a bit more indicative, but anything is a huge improvement over nothing.

I didn't include BD terminals in the original idea simply because my typedefs are, 90% of the time, placed as constants, which is a purely personal perspective. I do agree that having the indication on terminals is useful.

[JackDunaway]

>>For clarity and consistency, I would say that if the array element is typedef'd, then every element in the array should be marked.

Yes - there's a big difference between a typedef'd array of elements, and an array of typedef'd elements. (Typically, you're "doing it wrong" if you typedef the array rather than the element). Each element of the array would need the indicator, no matter how much noise it creates.

>>Having the indication on terminals (and probably locals as well) is probably useful.

And globals, for consistency.

You're also going to run into troubles when nesting typedefs within typedefs.

The black triangle on the typedef - was it introduced after usability testing rejected the flag and the border ideas? The black triangle does not stand out as "Aha! That's the one." (for me)

[AristosQueue (NI)]

> You're also going to run into troubles when nesting typedefs within typedefs.

I think we would only mark the top-most typedef. It seems like noise to mark all the nested ones -- it's not like you can disconnect from them or anything like that. Is there some reason why the nested ones need marking?

[Wonger]

Yes, if the array element is the typedef then every element will be marked. In the example I posted, the array itself was the TypeDef.

The border idea and tag coming off the side were rejected, the tag because it just didn't look quite right and especially within an array could potentially grow the bounds immensely. The border idea would be potentially confusing because of the different borders that different constants already use. I am considering moving the corner to the top left, the question with that is for arrays which way looks better:

This is for the case where the array itself is the typedef, if the array's element was the typedef it would look like this:

[Wonger]

We are not currently planning to extend this to locals because the locals are not directly linked to the typedef, i.e. you can't right click on the local and open typedef.

[Broken_Arrow]

Great news Wonger, thanks for the status change. I'm liking the left side idea if we use the triangle thing.

[tst]

> ...the question with that is for arrays which way looks better:

I would suggest not placing the glyph on the index display, because the index display can be hidden (something I sometimes do), and then you would either need to place the glyph on the constant or hide it, creating an incosistency either way.

[Broken_Arrow]

NI,

Can an administrator edit this Idea's picture so that the two "Message Edited by..." are deleted? It makes the picture noisy. Thanks 🙂