Another one...

[X.]

You mean the next-to-last example? The last one has no indicator connected, so there is no conflict.

In the first example, I admitted that there might be some divination involved in figuring what my intent was when removing the unit conversion primitive. I showed it as an introduction to the second one, where I think Darren's algorithm might need to be a bit more moderate in its culling of wires. If it did not delete the wire connected to the unit conversion, things would have looked perfectly alright.

[RavensFan]

I mean the examples you are showing in your most recent message #29, not the earlier message #25.

[X.]

I was referring to that one indeed, but within it, there are TWO illustrated cases. The first one (which you seem to be referring to, but as I said, is not the focus of the discussion) and the second one, where the indicator is not connected, therefore your comment does not apply.

[RavensFan]

It looks like all one example to me with just different views based on how many broken wires you leave behind.

[Darren]

---

@X. wrote:

Not sure this one has been discussed yet, but here it is in a few snapshots:

...

---

These situations are solved by my solution described in Reply #21 above, where I will now always preserve a pass-through wire on a single-input, single-output removed object, no matter what the types are.  Look for it in the 2013 beta.

[X.]

Well it is not, but I guess I should have clarified what I wanted to illustrate.

1) The first two snapshots show the before and after selecting the unit conversion and Ctrl-Space Ctrl-R (CSCR) removing it.

Because the control has a unit and the indicator connected to it has none, removing the unit conversion breaks the wire and Darren's decision is to delete ONLY ONE SEGMENT of the wire thus broken. Why? I am not sure, and I was just saying: since you leave broken wires anyway, why not leave that segment as well?

2) Now, to simplify the problem, I disconnected the indicator and once more showed the before and after selecting the unit conversion and CSCR it. These are the last two snapshots.

Here, since the only thing the unit conversion is connected to is a structure which is totally unit agnostic, I was expecting that (A) the wire would NOT be broken after removal of the unit conversion, and thus (B) that the wire would be preserved (and not broken).

That's not what happens and to add insult to injury, once more Darren leaves a broken wire which can do nobody any good.

EDIT: OK, I was typing that while Darren was posting the message above. That answers 2) I guess, nut I am not sure about 1)?

[Darren]

---

@X. wrote:

That answers 2) I guess, but I am not sure about 1)?

---

This image illustrates what will happen in LabVIEW 2013 if you Ctrl-Space-Ctrl-R the selected Convert Unit functions on the left diagrams. I believe this is the functionality you were wanting, but let me know if you thought something else should happen.

[X.]

That's basically it. Good job!

EDIT: I am kind of suprised by the lone While Loop with the unbroken wire inside though... 

[Darren]

Ok, the prioritization of non-constants over constants, and of non-selected constants over selected constants, when deciding on which pass-through source terminal to preserve, should be in the 2013 beta. Please sign up for the beta and test all the Ctrl-Space-Ctrl-R functionality that is important to you and let me know what you think.

[X.]

Thanks. Where do I sign up?