Consistent Resizing for Loops

[smercurio_fc]

One thing that has always annoyed me about resizing of loops is the inconsistent (at least to me) behavior when it comes to resizing them, and the movement of the loop terminals, depending on whether or not something is connected to them. The behavior varies depending on whether or not you have AutoGrow enabled in the options, which is even more confusing since that setting affects when you shrink a loop.

Behavior 1:

Behavior 2:

 

To me this seems like inconsistent behavior, though others may see it as perfectly consistent. May I humbly request that, at the very least, there be a consideration that when resizing loops, the iteration and conditional terminals are never "lost", regardless of whether AutoGrow is enabled or not?

[muks]

I seriuosly didnt knew I could do what you have illustrated. But

1. When ou have lost the iteration count and the conditional ter minal (which in the first place was done intentionally) can be brought back when you right click and select autogrow again

2. Have you faced any difficulty with the current scenario?

I will infact hide a part of my code this way...

[smercurio_fc]

What scenario?

[muks]

I meant have you hid this accidentally. I personally have not done that.

[PJM_Labview]

> May I humbly request that, at the very least, there be a consideration that when

> resizing loops, the iteration and conditional terminals are never "lost", regardless of

> whether AutoGrow is enabled or not?

I am all for that one.

[smercurio_fc]

---

muks wrote:

I meant have you hid this accidentally. I personally have not done that.

---

Well, I suppose if you consider resizing loops an accidental operation, then yeah, I guess I'm a klutz.

[muks]

It is not abt resizing but abt hiding the interation.

Why will you re-size the loop . I guess to accomodate something not to hide something. 

[smercurio_fc]

Resizing loops can happen anytime and for many reasons. I often shrink them when I clean up code and am able to find an alternate way that uses less code - i.e., less space. Why have a loop with a whole bunch of white space?

[rex1030]

I just wish the stop condition and its control could be anchored to a corner of the loop so the pair could move with the corner no matter how you resize it. The fact that growing it leaves the stop control floating off in space in the middle of your loop or shrinking it is blocked by the current location of the stop is eternally annoying.