Ernesto Aneiros

Thank you Aristos for your response, I can tell you gave it a bit of thought before responding.

10 hours ago, Aristos Queue said:

There are levels of trust between tool vendor and tool user, and once those are breeched, the promises of the vendor aren't worth anything.

You really hit the nail on the head here and get to the core of my issue. When my compiler silently changes behavior behind my back my existential anxiety levels tend to go through the roof  "If X changed... what _else_ did?" In this case it was something rather benign, but... trust is hard to gain but easy to lose. I am really happy that someone with your experience in LV R&D shares the same point of view.

Also, if my original post came across as harshly worded then, I too, should apologize. Thanks for your response!

11 hours ago, Aristos Queue said:

Yes, there is a guarantee: both a statement from R&D...

As we have already seen, a statement from R&D is not a strong guarantee.

11 hours ago, Aristos Queue said:

But if you want to continue connecting both, it's just your own programming time and run-time performance you're wasting, so go for it. 

I also plan to connect both not because I like wasting my own programming time (as negligible as connecting an extra terminal might be) but because LV's behavior here is _inconsistent_ between versions and _silently_ changed. What guarantees do we have that it will not change again?