Race Condition.

[Intaris]

Isn't there a problem there if the Quotient is negative?

I remember something like that.  Then it'd be "relegated" (or is that promoted) to functionally incorrect code......



Shane.

[smercurio_fc]

In this instance negativity is not a factor. I forgot to include a link to the thread to see it in context: http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&thread.id=316394

[Ray.R]

You forgot to mention that the indicator "Index" is a double... Why a double?  Everything else is an integer..  😉

I forgot to mention that it was cohersed to a double..   (nice red cohersion dot).. 

Got to put my right eye patch..  I have to fix my avatar..  😉

Message Edited by JoeLabView on 04-15-2008 03:58 PM

[smercurio_fc]

---

@JoeLabView wrote:

You forgot to mention that the indicator "Index" is a double... Why a double?  Everything else is an integer..  😉

---

Indeed. When I created the alternative I quickly slapped it together and just did a drag-and-drop of the indicator from the poster's original VI.

Message Edited by smercurio_fc on 04-15-2008 03:05 PM

[altenbach]

Hrrmmmmm! What are the chances that the property node gets read after the boolean receive the new value??? ~0%??

(from http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&thread.id=317490&jump=true)

Message Edited by altenbach on 04-19-2008 09:34 PM

[Ray.R]

Altenbach,

I have a coin that I can flip..  😉

[shoneill]

I call edge!

And hope for a burst of Octarine...

Shane.

Did I win?

[Ben]

"Hrrmmmmm! What are the chances that the property node gets read after the boolean receive the new value??? ~0%??"

After too many years of whatching the code in execution high-lighting I have to say "0%".

The code scheduler appears to resolve all values that do NOT have any dependencies on previous code FIRST. THEN it does everything else.

Ben

[Anthony_de_Vries]

If it's really 0%, then it's not a race condition, is it?  

That makes it a "clever" way to avoid a sequence structure. 

[altenbach]

---

Anthony de Vries wrote:

If it's really 0%, then it's not a race condition, is it?  

That makes it a "clever" way to avoid a sequence structure. 

---

I would not count on it. Even if it is 0% now, it could be different in a future version of LabVIEW or on a massively multicore CPU, where both things could happen at the same time and the result could flip more randomly. 😉

It would be a clever way only of you really want and expect the 0% result. I am pretty sure the original programmer wanted the 100% result 100% of the time. 😄