crelf

Oh, I'm not saying that it's counterintuative - it totally is, until you stop and thinking about what's going on. That can be said for several things in LabVIEW (remember the first time you branched a by-reference wire and couldn't fathom why the data "on" the other wire was changing?) Maybe there should be an option to unset this should be available (like an "allow unhandled events to be registered" checkbox in the event dialog if the dynamic event handles are shown). That said, I'm sure AQ will agree that it's a little more complicated than just adding a chekcbox

Hmmm. I understand your analogy, but I don't think it's completely appropriate in this case (pun intended). It would be true if the event structure was analogous to a case structure, but it's not - it's an event structure, not a case structure. For yout analogy to hold true, we would only be able to have user events, and not FP events. I don't think one case really qualifies it as a precedence. (well, less than one, as described above).

It think it could be incredibly useful, especially in cloud computing. We have a reuse architecture that uses something very similar, and are in discussions on how we could use this newly discovered functionality (yes, that's what I'm calling it) to simplify part of that architecture. I don't know why you'd remove this feature of user events because its behavior is inconsistant with FP events - they're two different kettles of fish that just happen to be handled by the same structure IMHO. I don't think so - user events and FP events aren't the same thing, so neither of them should be limited by the capabilities of the other. Then you should either lower the complexity of your code, or document it better. That iIt might be difficult to work with in complex code isn't a reason to limit functionality IMO - imagine what other LabVIEW features would be removed if we reviewed everything against this standard. Perhaps LabVIEW should note it as a warning (you're registered for an event that you don't handle), because we all have warning reporting turned on, right?

Think of it as a tribute. Actually, I think I spent more time correcting spelling and grammar mistakes that it would have taken me to type it out myself

Unintuative = yes, bug = no, should it be the default behavior = yes. Let me explain: I agree that it's unintuative, but I do not agree that it's a bug. Most people would expect that they'd need to write an explicit case for that event to be handled, but the event structure is *receiving* the event, and that resets the timeout - whether it's handling it or not is irrelevant. Try not to confuse "firing events" with "handling events". Put simply: you registered for an event, the event occured, the event structured saw it - that resets the timeout, irrespective of whether it does something with the event. It's totally the corrrect behavor - the only argument can be whether it's intuative. Now, should you be able to register and not handle events from the user interface? That's another question The "problem" really is that it's not clear what *registration* means, because we don't have explicit "registration" for normal FP events: we just implicitly register for those by creating cases. I still don't think it's a bug though - just because two types of events (and they really are two types) can be registered in a different way doesn't make either of them wrong.

Do the need to be in a DLL, or are you just trying to have them appear in an ActiveX-like interface? If the latter, put them in a class - then you can access them (they're in a class now, so let's call them "methods") through property nodes.

Well, if the event structure is reached, it needs to either wait for an event, or timeout. I'm wondering if the loop you have isn't stopping, and it goes around again? Can you give us a screenshot? Or upload your code? I know a few people that could do with one of those

That's great advice!

It's a folksy term of endearment, I promise If I did, wouldn't that be a type of self-abuse, so to speak?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8mCUyYA1qE

Congrats on the 1000 and the missus François!

I use hyperterminal You can copy it from a PC with an OS that it comes with to the other PC, and just run the exe.