LabVIEW Idea Exchange

Could it be possible for LabVIEW (even if only for versions 202{1,2,3} onwards etc) to make an attempt to open newer files and just break them when new features are used?

The comments in this Idea (LabVIEW Compatibility Modes) suggest this and related ideas, but it isn't the main part of that idea, so I'm posting it separately here.

An ideal solution for me would be for VIs to automatically save back in the 'oldest' version that they would support (and perhaps not be 'up-compiled' on load), but this idea has been discussed a few times and doesn't appear to be something NI will support.

An alternative (perhaps only possible in currently unreleased versions?) might be to have LabVIEW 202x try and open a VI saved in 202<x+n>, and then give the symbol for missing VIs (ideally with the name, if possible) for anything that isn't supported.

As an example, trying to open a VI using Insert into Map (if this were available for existing LabVIEW versions) in LabVIEW 2018 could produce something like

with the Context Help giving me a clue as to what was lost - I could then Google "Insert into Map LabVIEW" and try guess how I might replace it (here, probably with Variant Attributes).

I'm posting this idea in relation to some comments I've recently heard regarding sharing and packaging code with LabVIEW, and how even when other (text) languages add new features and so code using them will fail to compile, their users/developers can still open the code, try fix bits, or generally workaround issues (and evaluate the benefits of upgrading, if the changes are large).

New versions of LabVIEW continue to have significant new features, so upgrading seems like it will continue to be at least my preference, but not everyone has the same requirements/situation/SSP/blah blah blah.

We currently need to use for loops to convert between arrays and sets:

This is not a bad thing in principle, but in my opinion there are multiple issues with it:

1. These loops require a lot of space on the block diagram, which distracts from the *actual* code. The for loop provided on the palette in particular is absurdly large (and has a label attached to it). Most users probably won't use it more than once.
2. The same code is used in many places to do the exact same job. This is a strong indicator for reusable code in the form of SubVIs.
3. An empty for loop can confuse users who are new to sets.

I think LabVIEW should ship with malleable VIs to take care of conversions between 1D Arrays and Sets, because everyone who uses sets will need them eventually:

Currently, the only object that we have access to in an Event Structure it the control itself:

This is not what I am interested in, most of the case, when I am working on the BD.

Rather, I'd like to either find the terminal, or local variables, references, etc.

Moreover, going to the control using the above shortcut may result in a messed up FP, not mentioning cases like this:

where the control may be hidden or invisible because it is in another tab than the one currently selected.

Now, I know that some will argue that the control terminal is most of the time in the event structure (see for instance this thread)...

But read the thread's comments for counter arguments: we would be talking about the Value Change event, but this is not what I am talking aboutin general: any event for that control should give access to the control's terminal (and BTW, it could very well be an indicator) and, as for a terminal, to this list of related objects:

(The last one courtesy of this shortcut plugin)