Yeah - that one bit me when it came in. I agree that it closed a hole, but a significant amount of my code relied on this little loop hole - to have the VI in memory to then be able to call it by name (not full path, just name) dynamically 😞
Case Structure Miscellany
- Here's something you may not have known...check out this VI:
...the contents of unexecuted frames of case structures whose selectors are wired to constants are not compiled. Keep this in mind when doing things like putting VIs in a case structure that won't execute just to keep the VIs in memory...they may not actually be loaded at all.
Here's something you may not have known...check out this VI:
There's no trick photography here...that is a missing subVI, but the VI is not broken.
Suppose, instead of a missing VI, I put a VI that depends on a DLL that does not exist. Am I still OK?