Resizable Boolean and Numeric Operations

[Hooovahh]

NXG had a neat feature I miss in LabVIEW 20xx and that is resizable nodes for operations like OR, AND, and Add.  There are other nodes that could benefit from this too like subtract and multiply, but here is the idea.

I'm aware that the Compound Arithmetic is a resizable node that covers the examples I have here.  But often times I will start with just two inputs so I'll use the OR, then later on I'll need to add a node and now I need to replace it with the Compound Arithmetic and then add the other inputs.  If the suggestion is to just use Compound Arithmetic, then why even have an OR node?

[Hooovahh]

Yes it is very neat, and does make the problem less of an issue since CAR will replace properly.  But then I ask again, why even have the non resizable nodes on the palette or quick drop?  (other than the marketing AQ mentioned earlier).  A QD shortcut for "OR" could drop the compound arithmetic.  And I'd even suggest having these nodes replace the native ones since they are a super-set of the functionality.  I find myself having to replace normal ORs with compound arithmetics all the time.  If they were resizable, or if I had used compound arithmetic from the start it take less steps.

[crossrulz]

As an EE, I find the CAR harder to read when it comes to AND or OR.  I much prefer the gate logic view versus the arrows.  So at the very least, I would really like the Boolean logic nodes to be expandable, even the NOR, NAND, XOR, and XNOR.

I am not a fan of the inverting bubbles on the inputs, but am willing to live with them on the expandable logic nodes.

[GregR]

To be clear the configuration of the node is part of LabVIEW's standard replace behavior. You get this replacing through the context menu as well.

[AristosQueue (NI)]

> Very neat

Custom replace code went in a few years back... 2013 or thereabouts, IIRC.

[JW-JnJ]

I'm with crossrulz here. The CAR is much harder to read for me. I'm a bigger fan of easily readable code over the minor BD space savings that the CAR (and negate dots) sometimes brings. Besides if I do use the CAR, I usually just kill the BD savings by writing a long human readable comment like "Is found AND Is valid AND NOT error".

I like this idea. Good iconography always gets a plus from me.

[wiebe@CARYA]

So the problem is that the graphics of compound arithmetic isn't that easy to read?

So what if the compound arithmetic changed it's appearance depending on the selected mode, instead of just the small symbol? I don't see why it can't look exactly like the proposed nodes.

If you don't like the negated inputs, don't use them. The negated output can be avoided by adding a NOR, NAND and NXOR, although I can't thing of a good replacement for a negated add or multiply.

[JW-JnJ]

To me it seems the original idea was aimed at the problem of "moving between dual input and multi-input nodes is hard". I just think his proposed solution also solves a secondary problem of "it takes me clicking on the CAR node to figure out exactly what it's doing".

If you don't like the negated inputs, don't use them. The negated output can be avoided by adding a NOR, NAND and NXOR, although I can't thing of a good replacement for a negated add or multiply.

In agreement there. I don't mind that it's in. I won't use it out of style preference.

[Hooovahh]

Yeah this is one of those ideas that might have multiple solutions, and other suggestions that are better than mine.  I really was just trying to say "These set of steps feel awkward, and here is one way I think it could be better." 

Having the existing nodes be resizable, or having the CAR node look more like the native nodes, and replacing the originals on the palette would be another solution that I think I would like more.  Partially because I am one of those heathens that occasionally use the invert input/output, but also because it allows for switching between modes without having to replace the nodes too.