I don't agree with changing them to "tunnels". It should behave just like the feedback node with an enable. With the feedback node, it just keeps it's previous value if disabled.
(I'm pretty sure I've seen this idea before)
There are only two ways to tell somebody thanks: Kudos and Marked Solutions Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines "Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God" - 2 Corinthians 3:5
crossrulz, I posted some questions for better understanding the ouadji intentions. Judging from his (a bit cryptic) answers it seeems that he do not really intend to convert the shift register into an output tunnel (in that case the last value in his table would be "1", not "6"). So the disabled shift register behaviour seems exactly the same of a (disabled) feedback node.
In other words the answer to the my first question can be considered "YES"...
ouadji, I've no problem with your english. Mine is even worse...
I apologize if I unintentionally offended you.
What you write is exactly what I meant in my answer to crossrulz, and it is to me perfectly clear why the last value returned by the loop is 6. I was just arguing that this behaviour is the behaviour of a "disabled feedback node", not the one of a pair of "tunnel", because, in the latter case, the input tunnel would be reinitialized every cicle to "0". In your proposal the "conditional shift register" remembers the last enabled value.
Actually, your code should return 5. The value coming out of A is 5, but the shift register is still disabled. So it should keep its previous value, 5.
There are only two ways to tell somebody thanks: Kudos and Marked Solutions Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines "Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God" - 2 Corinthians 3:5
And the confusion of all this is a good reason not to implement such a feature. It is not saving much in terms of coding, and it is much clearer if you explicitly show what value should go into the shift register on each iteration.
Just to really toss a monkey wrench in the gears. What would happen with a conditional SR on a 0 iteration For loop? We sort of broke the inplaceness SRs are currently required to have. FBNs dont have this restriction since they are not bound to the loop inputs and outputs. A FBN can implement the function you want without breaking the inplaceness of the SR
National Instruments will not be implementing this idea. See the idea discussion thread for more information.