# Hidden inputs (specified on the proc, not the instance) **URL:** \ **Category:** In Progress\ **Tags:** request, graph-qol\ **Created:** [27 March 2022 20:29 UTC](https://forums.apparance.uk/t/hidden-inputs-specified-on-the-proc-not-the-instance/94 "2022-03-27T20:29:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![OLawson](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/forums.apparance.uk/olawson/32/167_2.png) [@OLawson](https://forums.apparance.uk/u/OLawson)\ **Post date:** [27 March 2022 20:29 UTC](https://forums.apparance.uk/t/hidden-inputs-specified-on-the-proc-not-the-instance/94/1 "2022-03-27T20:29:43Z")
I’ve taken to naming proc inputs with an underscore prefix to make sure I never attach anything externally to that input, as they are used entirely internally for recursion. eg. `_i` for an iterator that would definitely break things if connected or even set to something other than an internally defined default. This mostly works for me, but I wonder about the benefits of something like a checkbox on proc inputs along with the other ‘Options’, that would hide that input externally for safety reasons. ---
**Author:** ![sam](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/forums.apparance.uk/sam/32/8_2.png) [@sam](https://forums.apparance.uk/u/sam)\ **Post date:** [28 March 2022 08:53 UTC](https://forums.apparance.uk/t/hidden-inputs-specified-on-the-proc-not-the-instance/94/2 "2022-03-28T08:53:04Z")
Yes, I know what you mean, I have done exactly that at times. Current favourite is a single character or lowercase name for the input. I have some input hiding work going on in another branch that could include this feature, and I expect you’d want it to just be setting the default show/hide state to hide for those inputs and allow it to be shown as needed otherwise you wouldn’t be able to see it on the recursing instance of the procedure!