When placing a Diagram Disable structure, enable has 'removed' contents instead of being empty

[LukeASomers]

When placing a diagram disable structure, the 'enabled' side of the structure starts blank, and the wirethroughs are replaced with default values. I have never wanted this behavior. Every time, I want it to:

1) duplicate the disabled side to the enabled side

2) select everything in the enabled side except for the wires.

3) execute the 'remove' function I normally get by 'ctrl-space, ctrl-r' (quick drop, remove)

[LukeASomers]

> This means that sometimes you get a wire and sometimes not, and we would need to check the enabled case anyway to make sure what it did and if we like it.

You need to do this check anyway. I hardly ever end up diagram-disabling things like your example, and much much more often things like my examples. And when I do diagram disable things like your example, I need to manually wire the inside anyway, since the default values are inevitably wrong. And this way we're already at the enabled side, to make that change.

If you need to manually rewire, you've already got the offending miswirings selected, ready to be banished at a keystroke.

In case structures, you're much more likely to want to put in something not-trivial. Diagram-disable, you're often just reversibly getting rid of something. Still, I'd go for that.

[AristosQueue (NI)]

Actually, Luke, I think it's pretty much the majority case that funky code gets commented out... it's part of why it gets commented out. But I think that's also a red herring in this discussion because...

The common would be to want to "remove the commented out nodes" -- which generally means that values would flow across the enabled diagram unmolested. With the current behavior, you have to go wire that. If LV can just connect them, then it should do so. You would know the cases where it couldn't because you'd see hollow tunnels instead of solid tunnels.

I said this is just as common with the Case Structure, and there are plenty of times when I'm putting down the Case to decide to execute a modification node or not... I can easily see this applying to Case as much as to Disable. After all, they're the same node, just one makes its decision at compile time and the other at run time. But if there's code to run or not run, the "not run" case probably has the same level of need to "propagate anyway" in both structures.

So I like the idea, and I like Altenbach's accidental improvement that it should also apply to Case Structures.