Selector Combinator - Input ID

[Arxos]

TL;DR

Add a way to convert a signal to a signal ID (the ID of the icon).

What?

Allow a mode in which the Selector Combinator converts the input signals into their signal ID.
For example, Iron Ore could have an ID of 1, Copper Ore an ID of 2, Stone an ID of 3, etc.
In essence, like the stack size mode, but instead it outputs a unique ID corresponding to that specific material/rarity combination.

This could either be set to output "Each" (i.e. Iron Ore with any value becomes Iron Ore with value 1) or to a specific, chosen value (i.e. Iron Ore with any value becomes "T" with value 1). In the latter case however, you would be unable to support multiple input signals (could maybe allow for a sort ascending/descending option to decide the output).

Why?

This specific suggestion doesn't solve any immediate problems, but it would allow for other problems to be solved in much more elegant ways.
For example, instead of having to give an assembler a "Blue belt" signal to set its recipe to that, you could tell it to parse the "T" input as its recipe (if nothing is specified, use the existing logic). This would remove any confusion of which signal to process as the recipe, as well as allow for fewer problems with things like input/output signal overlap.

Some problems/suggestions that can be very elegantly solved via this feature:
- viewtopic.php?t=122510 - No need for doing something arbitrary like taking the highest or some specific value
- viewtopic.php?t=116694 - Again, no need to apply any special logic to the signals to act as a tiebreaker

It is also possible to provide an option to reverse this process, as it could allow for some useful things too, but it'd be secondary priority for me.

[danbopes]

I don't know if the benefits offset the additional cluttering of the selector UI, for something that isn't entirely intuitive.

[Arxos]

I don't know if the benefits offset the additional cluttering of the selector UI, for something that isn't entirely intuitive.

I don't really see how this adds a significant amount of clutter. Selector combinators already have 7 very distinct modes that each come with their own UI. This would just be adding 1 to the list (or 2 if the reverse is provided as well). The only real difficulty comes in remembering all of its modes. Which is a fair argument, but I wouldn't really call that UI clutter.

I do agree that the feature isn't entirely intuitive, but only because it adds a layer of abstraction that non-programmers probably aren't used to handling. But this would definitely be a major boon to advanced players, as especially with the newer options available in Space Age, it's starting to become more and more problematic to keep the input and outputs clean and not-conflicting. This approach could technically allow for specifying a unique symbol for many more inputs/outputs than are currently supported, which would make it easier to distinguish between signals cleanly.

EDIT: Also, it is fair to say that this may clutter the UI of assemblers and such with an extra icon slot that a lot of people won't use (as you'd now be able to set a symbol for something like "set recipe"). I think this could be okay if you just make the default be something like "Automatic" that explains the default behavior, but it's a fair consideration.