Like written in this thread, a few weeks ago only the first slice of a pin group got a label, when exposed. Now none of them gets a label, also the Output is not written into the label anymore when exposed.
IMO this would align more with the exposing mechanism of the other nodes? Appending 1 to the first input and then counting up?
Also in certain scenarios when designing a library it might make sense sometimes to count them up from 0 with the given name. This could be an option in the configuration menu.
The rule regarding whether a newly exposed iobox has a label or not is like this: If the label starts with one of “Input”, “Output”, “Result”, “Value” (optionally followed by a number) then the label is not applied to the iobox. The idea here is that those are generic names that would pollute a patch quite a bit without adding any more specific meaning/information.
Regarding starting with 0 or not, we decided generally against this (after hours of discussion). We decided in order to avoid confusion, it is important to be able to refer to “Input 3” and that meaning “the 3rd pin” (which would be the 4th pin, when starting labels from 0). But obviously there are still good reasons to start from 0, eg. when “Channel 0” is referring to a DMX channel, where in DMX speak that is what they’d call it (I believe).
