Page 1 of 1
inserter-behavior description
Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2025 2:09 pm
by Deggial_68
TL;DR
Please change the toggle-description ('Enable/disable') of inserters to only one option (-> 'Disable').
What?
The condition result is either TRUE or FALSE.
There is no sense in offering two contradictory options. Which one is it, if the condition is TRUE? Will 'Enable' be chosen, or 'disable'?
This is very confusing!
Please restrain to only one option ( 'Disable')
As there is now some space won, maybe make it even more clear and write: "Disable, if the condition is met" or "Disable, if (condition =) TRUE"?
Why?
It took me hours and a lot of swearing, until I learned by heart, that a TRUE condition will 'disable' the inserter.
Make inserter logic more comprehensible - especially for beginners - by reducing the behavior-description to the one, correct word: 'Disable'!?
Re: inserter-behavior description
Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2025 2:31 pm
by Loewchen
The description is: "Turn this entity on only when the condition is true."
Re: inserter-behavior description
Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2025 2:40 pm
by Kyralessa
Deggial_68 wrote: Mon Jan 06, 2025 2:09 pm
It took me hours and a lot of swearing, until I learned by heart, that a TRUE condition will 'disable' the inserter.
You actually have this backwards; if the condition is true, it
enables the inserter.
But this mix-up illustrates the problem.
I agree, the text "Enable/disable" doesn't make sense.
Something like "Enable if" or "Enable only if" might be more clear.
Re: inserter-behavior description
Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2025 4:50 pm
by Deggial_68
Yea, it's the other way round.
Somehow, I seem to get the intended behavior now. Oftentimes by simply trying.
But as confirmed by Kyralessa, it doesn't make sense.
Which makes me wonder: why was my suggestion pushed to
this forum section? (I certainly posted in the main Suggestion forum, didn't I?)
It certainly isn't 'outdated', as the description wasn't changed. (Or is there a change on it's way and is it therefore resolved?)
Which leaves the option 'Not implemented'. (Somehow, equivocal descriptions seem to be a thing ...
)
And yes, I
know, it's not implemented!
That's why I created the post.
Does this mean, it will
never be implemented in the future, because it's a bad suggestion?
If so: why?
It's such a minor change that would clarify a lot.