Please tell us what your experience has been with Do-more...

[Controls Guy]

We have plans to create what we are calling 'super view' that would be a fully configurable Xref/Doc/Data/Etc view. Not sure of the schedule for it, but we feel that may be a better plan than trying to fix all of the existing views. Improving the configurability of the Xref view probably wouldn't be too hard though, so we might look at that for a future release.

Thanks for both efforts (upgrading XRef and the cool sounding super view)!

Rereading my posts, I realized it might have sounded like I wanted to rearrange the columns just so they'd be in my perceived order of importance, but that's not what I meant.  What I was saying was that if I have a certain budget of screen width for the stuff docked on the left, I'd keep adding columns going down that list till I got to the limit of what would fit in the allowed total width at a readable zoom level.

[franji1]

Did you know that all dockable/floatable can be auto-hidden?  Just "unpin" the dockable/floatable (the pin button next to the X close button in its title bar).

When it's in this mode, you can make it occupy as much of the client area as you want, and then float your cursor on top of its "tab".  It will pop up and even stay there as long as your mouse cursor stays over that view.  It will auto-hide once you move your cursor away.

If you click on the unpinned but docked view (giving it focus), it will stay "exposed" until you give focus to another view (e.g. Ladder View or another dockable/floatable).

What's great about this is that your client area (where your Ladder view sits) is maximized, and those views are not even a mouse click away (just a float your cursor away)!

We try to make most dockable/floatable start docked on the left (this is actually configurable in Global Options on left or right side).  However, XRef, Output, and Find Results, which are wide, always start on the bottom.  If I ever need one of those views, but need my Ladder View to stay as large as possible, I "unpin" it (I do this sometimes with the Project Browser/Launch Pad on the left).

[Controls Guy]

I have tried unpinning while having all the stuff docked on the left.  It was okay; I wasn't wild about it.  (I almost never auto-hide the Windows taskbar for example, though I do like to hide the Office start bar) I don't mind the output and find results windows on the bottom because I don't tend to keep them open more than momentarily.  The XRef I'll keep up for at least several minutes (or even "on" but stacked with other stuff on the left till I close Designer).

I haven't actually tried auto-hiding on the bottom yet, and I will.  I'm just used to having it on the left and it should still be able to be with some of the updates I mentioned before.

OTOH, the new super view might obsolete all these other views so I can't wait to try that once you guys can get to it.

Also, the table Data View (or "memory dump") view pretty much has to be full screen (or at least as full screen as the ladder view) to be of any benefit, so when you get that done, it will have an effect on this issue as well.  The "AB way" for that is not to have any separate screen real estate or keystrokes dedicated to editing, you just click on the register you want to edit (or arrow from a previous cursor location) and enter the new value.  <Enter> will write and keep the same register highlighted; arrowing writes and moves the cursor with no other keystrokes/confirmation required.  I haven't killed anybody yet with it.

[CReese]

My 2p here is that a customized data view would be GREAT and very valuable from a troubleshooting point of view. One of the largest considerations I have with streamlining and making this code more modular is that it is still readable. For example, while Loops and array are great from a code WRITING standpoint, when you are troubleshooting something, they are a big PIA. I've built in troubleshooting view loops, but it would be better if I could see data in two dimensions, i.e. blocks next to each other, where the rows correspond to one another. Or something customizable. Because this is such an important consideration, I've considered writing something like this into the HMI just to make it available to the engineer/technician who will need to poke around.

[Controls Guy]

Big kudos on Force/Unforce in the right-click menu!  Much more convenient the old UI.   

[franji1]

My 2p here is that a customized data view would be GREAT and very valuable from a troubleshooting point of view. One of the largest considerations I have with streamlining and making this code more modular is that it is still readable. For example, while Loops and array are great from a code WRITING standpoint, when you are troubleshooting something, they are a big PIA. I've built in troubleshooting view loops, but it would be better if I could see data in two dimensions, i.e. blocks next to each other, where the rows correspond to one another. Or something customizable. Because this is such an important consideration, I've considered writing something like this into the HMI just to make it available to the engineer/technician who will need to poke around.

As a work-around, note that since Data Views are dockable/floatable, you can stack them next to each other to give you a 2D layout (see attached screen shot).  They can be floated as a group also (great if you have a 2nd monitor).

[Controls Guy]

When doing a cross reference for a bit-of-word, say D1000:12, all the references to that upper level element, in this case D1000, are listed in one group, sorted by location, so you get D1000:15 inputs and outputs mixed in with the :12 ones and so on.

For me I think it would be much more helpful if each bit got its own display group and label in the left column, or at least if still grouped by word/dword, that they were sorted by bit first and then by location.  All the :0's first sorted by location, then all the :1's and so on.

If in separate groups, I'd have the D1000 native sized group first, then D1000:0, D1000:1 and so on.

[BobO]

I understand the request and I could possibly do something in the new sorts. The problem is that the extra information you are wanting to sort is pretty complex and can be the full range of casts, as well as struct fields. I currently have the block name sort sorting those fields alphabetically, but that isn't going to give you what you want.

[Controls Guy]

Hmmm.  So you're saying there is a sort option that goes D0, D0:0, D0:1, D0:10...D0:19, D0:2, D0:20...D0:29, etc?

I don't really like when numeric stuff gets sorted alphabetically like that, but it does give me a lot of what I want which is the bits separately, rather than mixed.

Is this in the production release already and I'm not aware of it, or is it in v1.1?

I do see what you mean about all the potential casts complicating things.  I don't know about everybody else, but I'd be happy with native size plus bit level as separate groups, without any other casts (or with the other casts thrown in with the native group.  I use other casts less commonly than bit-of-word, or at least I have in the past.

[BobO]

Hmmm.  So you're saying there is a sort option that goes D0, D0:0, D0:1, D0:10...D0:19, D0:2, D0:20...D0:29, etc?

Is this in the production release already and I'm not aware of it, or is it in v1.1?

Yes. Was added for 1.1 in response to user requests.

[BobO]

Gut enough? Ja?

[plcnut]

Very Good!

[Controls Guy]

Gut enough? Ja?

Ja, SEHR gut, danke!  Viel spass!  

[franji1]

Gut enough? Ja?

Ja, SEHR gut, danke!  Viel spass!  

I know a little German...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0lJyDCLYTE

[BobO]

Also added expansion of simple ranges. Might have already mentioned that, but don't think I posted pics. Note C0 through C10...