Have a special property node for single items

[Ray.R]

The idea is that if you need a property node for a single property item, the property node would look more like a VI, where the error out is located at the bottom.

For example, how often do people use the "Bytes at Port" property node only to crosswire the error cluster and the number of bytes at the port.

See image below:

The suggested node would have a single property in the center and have the error out at the bottom.  This would permit to have a nice routing of the wires at the output.

Of couse, we could always create a sub-vi which contains the property node and thus has the nice straight wires to go to the VISA Read.vi.

Let's see what other people think.

[RavensFan]

This sounds a lot like this idea.

Property Node Error Input and Output on the bottom

[smercurio_fc]

I have to ask: what's wrong with the crosswire?

[Ray.R]

I had not seen that one.  It's a similar idea, but since expanding the property node would not make sense with the error cluster wire hanging at the bottom, it would be good to have a single property which would be in the middle.

Crossed wires?  The problem is not the crossing of the wires.  You must have used the Bytes at Port property which is wired to the VISA Read.  It's the way they cross each other which makes the code a bit messay at that area since they practically overlap each other.

See what I mean?

I am treating this one as a particular case because this property node is available as a "ready-made" property in the VISA palette.  Now if they simply had a nomal square icon, then that would be fine or even preferred.. 

Heck.  I'll just do my own and keep it in my library. 

[Ray.R]

Forgot to mention something else...

While describing good coding practices and mentioning to keep the wires straight, why would we want to endorse crossing the wires?  What's wrong with doing it right?   After all, if we suggest that to new coders, we would we then suggest that crossed wires are okay?  That doesn't make sense to me.. 

[smercurio_fc]

I never said anything about endorsing crossing wires. However, in your top part of the image the wiring seems perfectly fine to me. After all, crosswires are not evil. Besides, sometimes they're inevitable since you're dealing with a 2D drawing surface.

[Ray.R]

You're right, there's nothing evil about crossed-wires.  Just an esthetics thing.

Maybe with the oncoming of 3D-tv's we'll be able to wire at different layers.  Actually CAD programs are already there... (layers).

Now that would be messy!

[JackDunaway]

Multi-layer VI with vias? I'll stick to my single layer (not even dual-sided!) SMT VI's for sanity's sake. 🙂

[smercurio_fc]

---

Ray.R wrote:

You're right, there's nothing evil about crossed-wires.  Just an esthetics thing.

---

I would agree with this. 

---

Maybe with the oncoming of 3D-tv's we'll be able to wire at different layers.  Actually CAD programs are already there... (layers).

Now that would be messy!

---

Hmmm... Wonder if the wiring cleanup tool will be up to the task. The PCB designer sits next to me, and he's always re-routing the auto-magic auto-router, so I'm not holding my breath. 

[Ray.R]

I hope you guys know I was kidding about 3D Labview..  😄

I do wonder if layering will change with CAD tools..  That's outside the scope of this thread..  

[Darren]

Any idea that has received less than 2 kudos within 2 years after posting will be automatically declined.