Diagram Constant Representation visualisation

[Intaris]

Inspired by Altenbach's Boolean constant design, I thought of the following....

When we have a SGL or a DBL constant on the block diagram, we have to right click, selece "representation" to find out exactly what type it is.  Why not have some indication as to the actual data type which could conveniently act as a menu for changing the data type.

The same thing goes for U8, I8, U16, I16 and so on.

Shane.

[JackDunaway]

I like this idea, but don't like how it doubles the size of the constant. Here's an idea: show number of bytes (1,2,4,8).

There are flaws with my way... doesn't differentiate between signed and unsigned, and showing 8 bytes would require two columns of 4. Can someone use our ideas as a springboard to design a lower-profile indication?

If not, I still like your idea, as proposed.

[altenbach]

> When we have a SGL or a DBL constant on the block diagram, we have to right click, selece "representation" to find out exactly what type it is.

All you need to do is ctrl+h (context help) and hover over the constant. It'll tell you the representation (same for hovering over a wire). Still, I agree there should be some direct graphical cues, simply to be able to fully reproduce a VI from an image or printed representation. (This goes along the same lines as this idea)

[Intaris]

@Altenbach, I thought of the string indicator thread when posting.  Logically the same idea I suppose.  Context help may work but it means I need to move the mouse over each and every constant to see what it is.

@mechelecengr, I was pretty sure somebody would come up with a better visualisation than mine but I didn't want to spend too much time on it.  I think your design is pretty good.

Message Edited by Intaris on 07-05-2009 02:51 PM

[J.Mamakos]

@mechelecengr, perhaps a solid line to symbolise 8 bytes rather than a second row of four dots? Also, can you not have 'S' or 'U' instead of the 'X' to represent signed and unsigned?

[LabBEAN]

James-

d=decimal

x=hex

o=octal

b=binary

Unsigned vs. Signed would be nice but would be lower priority than memory width if you had to pick one.

[Intaris]

I think IF something is going to be done then it must show not only the SIZE of the data type (1,2,4,8 Bytes) but also the Signed aspect of Integers.

[jdeguire]

What about rather than showing dots for different data type sizes, the shade of color would change?  So maybe a U8 would be a light blue and a U64 would be a dark blue.  A float would be a slightly lighter orange, a double would be be the current shade of orange, and an extended float would be darker orange.  The advantage is that wires would follow this scheme as well, so it would be easier to trace wires of a certain type through the BD.

This still does not account for signed vs. unsigned, but maybe they should not be the same color anyway.  Maybe one could be purple or red or something.

[RavensFan]

The different shades of orange and blue sound like a good idea.  The only problem is when you deal with wires, they are only a pixel or two thick, and it is kind of hard to discern different colors from such a narrow pixel area.  When you start factoring in thicker wires for 1-D arrays, and larger and larger spaced wires for 2-D, 3-D and larger arrays, discerning different colors of orange or blue would become even more impossible.

[Matthew_Kelton]

Don't forget that some of us are color blind and differing shades means nothing.  I already have enough trouble with wire colors (reals and booleans are probably the two biggest for me), so doing different shades will do me (and many others) no good.

[cyro]

Maybe it helps when you customize your constants: