Wow - that's a mouthful!

I'm just thinking out loud here: imagine I have a polymorphic VI (let's call it the "parent") which has some components (let's call them the "children") and I create a lvlib that contains both the parent and all it's children. Say I then set the children to private in the lvlib (you can probably see where I'm going here), but I leave the parent as public. Now I can't use the parent in a VI outside of the lvlib, because all it really is is a placeholder for one of it's children (which are private). Would it make sense to have private children of a public parent inheret the public attribute as a special case for polymorphic VIs only?

Hi crelf

I came across the same thing when I wanted to design polymorhpic "tool" VIs and distribrute them in .lvlib but keep the internals private as the point was to encapsulate using polymorphism.
As it kept breaking my code, which I thought was unintuitive, I haven't gone back for a second try.
Maybe there is a reason for it?

But if anyone knows a work around - I am keen to know!
Especially now NI have starred using lvlib, I bet we see them around more and more in the future.

The ability you described would sure be handy for source distribution.

Yes, it would make a lot of sense to allow this for polymorphic VIs. Unfortunately, we didn't have the idea until late in the game and the architecture we use for testing scope has proven inflexible for making this work. It's a low priority desirable behavior.

I sure hope so!


Thanks for the info Stephen - I figured as much.

Good description, but I don't think it is possible.


Let me bump this.
Together with the same behaviour for typedefs.

Ton