LabVIEW
Malleable VI VIM input propagation
Solved!
Is there a way to make to force the inputs to match even when only one is connected?
I think it is quite clear that if an input is wired in this scenario that the other one as to be of the same type and would just use the default type value when unplugged.
Thanks. Actually it solves my problem as for now it's always the second output that is disconnected sometimes. 
@mcduff wrote:
The attached works is only the top input is connected, however, I cannot get it to work if only the bottom input is connected. Hopefully it will give you some ideas.
Could you post an image or a 2017 version?
Search LabVIEW like a graph! Thanks. Creative use of a disable structure...
I suppose this was just a dummy functionality (as there is a Swap Values function that does exactly this)?
Here's what I would have done (disable structures would (will?) cause data copies in some situations):
@jacemdom wrote:
Dear Trusted Enthusiast!
You replied condescendingly on another of my posts yesterday and I didn't appreciate it and on top, you were completely wrong as you are now. It is not because you don't understand the use of something that it is useless!
How was that condescending? We're trying to build a better LabVIEW, and my voice count at least as much as anyone's. If you don't want criticism, don't post ideas.
It also was not completely wrong. Pretty sure you and AQ agreed on 50% of my message. And that was the 50% that your idea was based on.
And I do understand. And I never said it was useless... Your making assumption.
@jacemdom wrote:First, that is not a disable structure but a case structure and second, the function you are referring to is a select function not a swap function.
Pretty sure that outer structure is a disabled case. And the function I was referring too (the one the .vim is trying to implement) is a swap value function.
The one I used to get the (what I think) desired behavior is indeed a select function. But that is just coincidence.
@jacemdom wrote:
The first version I created used 2 select functions instead of a case structure but I thought that using a case structure instead would help with the VIM type propagation.
I thought the disabled case was part of the solution, actually doing something useful. Not sure why else it would be there.
@jacemdom wrote:
If you don't understand what a person is trying to achieve, just don't reply or ask for clarifications and use cases!
Let's be very clear on this: I reply when and what I want.
You're failing to see that there is a situation when you think you understand someone, and actually try to be helpful. Consider that if the response doesn't land well could very well be a problem of the receiver (that would be you in this case).
@jacemdom wrote:
I am in no way expecting you to understand this as if you could, you probably wouldn't have replied in the first place!
That's just arrogance. What you expect is a property of you, not me.
@jacemdom wrote:So please stop wasting my time with your useless posts! Trusted Enthusiast...sure...whatever!
You're way off here. And out of place. I bet you wasted much more time on this reply then on reading mine. That's just silly.
@jacemdom wrote:
P.S. Why i am annoyed by this? Hmm...I was actually expecting a solution or pointer or something that would help!!!
As I see, you already got your solution on the first reply. I was just exploring the solution space. So what if it was a bit off? If anyone that ever made a mistake isn't allowed to post an answer, you wouldn't get an answer at all.
If you don't appreciate advice, not matter how bad it is, you shouldn't ask for advice.
Thanks for the swap function didn't know it existed, it's time for me to go through all the palettes again!
As for the disable structure and swap function, I didn't have a clue what you where talking about cause I didn't know the swap function existed and the disable structure was inserted by LabVIEW 2018 when saving the VIM for you in version 2017. So what I saw and read was this...
That combined with your unpleasant and wrong replies of yesterday made me blew a fuse. Of course it's my fuse that blew and totally responsible for it so if you never reply to my posts again I will totally own it.
As for the condescending i will try to explain subtle language nuances...there is a noticeable difference between saying :
"In this example, why are the numeric type match there?"
Simple question.
"In this example, why are the numeric type match's even there?"
Question implying that the presence of the type match is unwarranted when it actually was...thus presuming you knew better...thus being condescending...
As for me being an arrogant ass sometimes...i totally agree 🙂
P.S. I have given you the solution since the swap function is exactly what i needed.
Two totally unexpected replies! Thanks for not escalating that discussion.
For me, this one applies (to me, just to be sure) really well: arguing with an engineer...
As for the language nuances, guess you're right. English isn't my first language, so I didn't realize that. Not sure if I can prevent that in the future, nuances take a long time to sink in.
Cheers. If we ever met, I'll buy you a beer (drink it myself if you don't want it 
).
BTW, one last thing. AFAIK, that "trusted enthusiast" is fixed by the forum. Didn't pick it myself.
