Implications of renaming VIs in instrument driver

[IanSh]

I am in the middle of refactoring and updating an instrument driver (non-SCPI), making it more similar to the standard templates.

In the interest of making it more standardised, I intend to rename various functions.

Given that I have :

1) Moved from an LLB to LVLIB, so namespace changed,

2) Standardised a lot of connector panes to 4224, so relinking is required,

3) Written new functions to replace old ones, and rewritten some old ones

4) Changed everything to use VISA instead of using cases for TCP/Serial

is there much of a penalty in renaming some of them to be more descriptive?

I think at this point any developer who wants to use the newer version is going to do quite a bit of replacing in their code. I would include revision notes to identify what names have changed. Note that the customer developer base is in the order of 10s, plus a few "internal".

[crossrulz · Accepted solution]

Just using a LVLIB will cause the users to have to go through a lot of updates to their code.  So since you have gone that far, you might as well update the names.

[IanSh]

Great, that's pretty much the way I was thinking with all the changes than the new namespace requires.