I see code as shown by Jason (#4) and Darren (#2) all the time...  Especially Darren's example.

Then again, I've been corrected by much simpler code while posting answers to this forum, too.. 

where's the smiley-guilty icon??? 

Here is another one.

I included both states just incase you thought there may have been a goode reason hiding in the other state.

Here is another in the same VI

Ben

Message Edited by Ben on 01-23-2007 01:28 PM

Message Edited by Ben on 01-23-2007 01:31 PM

Message Edited by Ben on 01-23-2007 01:31 PM
 

---

Senior Measurement & Automation Architect, Certified LabVIEW Architect (LVOOP), LabVIEW Champion (NON-Kool-aid Drinker)
NEW! DSAutomation.com (Coming soon, Champions Corner)
VIs in VI.lib are Off-Limits!, Trouble with a Race Condition?

---

	RG_Code.JPG (17 kb)
	Iteration count.JPG (7 kb)

Message Edited by shoneill on 01-23-2007 10:49 PM
 

---

Ben wrote:

Here is another one.

---

We defined Rube Goldberg code as "exceedingly complex LabVIEW code that performs simple tasks in very indirect and convoluted ways" (see first post).

This (and some of the examples shown earlier)  is now actually a Rube Goldberg NOP (or Rube Goldberg NOOP), freshly defined as:

"exceedingly complex LabVIEW code that performs absolutely nothing in very indirect and convoluted ways".

(We could also define the construct as a WEQ (wire equivalent code), code that can be replaced with a plain wire without any change in functionality. )

---

LabVIEW Champion . Oh, by the way, I work for peanutsKudos .

---

First the legal stuff:

Warning: The code posted previously was written by "proffesionals". Do NOT attempt to write this code yourself.

Excellent point Christian. (Leave ti to one our academic types to recognize when we need a new term ).

Just to help me understand the differences...

WEQ's are identity operations and satisfy the condition

A = B

where:

A = Input

B =Output

Can we say the same about RG-NOP's?

Shane wrote;

"

Ben,

I have them all over some code I inherited from a previous employer at our company.

I honestly studied it for a while thinking ther HAS to be some significance to that code (Regarding the error cluster).  I mean, come on.....

In the end I convinced myself I WAS actually sane (Something I feel I have to do on an almost daily basis)  and it had no purpose whatsoever.

Shane.

"

That construct is all over this code I recieved. I wonder if it was the same developer or if they both came from the same LV school of thought.

After stepping outside the "Good Developer Box" for a second it hit me what that code was for!

It is a very handy way to make sure the sub-VI does not return an error. If the sub-VI is failing, just switch the boolean constant to false! 

The the very thought alone gave me the sensation of "finger-nails on the chalk board".

If this is indeed the case, then the code I posted is not RGC or RG-NOP or WEQ...

It's a hack!

Ben

---

Senior Measurement & Automation Architect, Certified LabVIEW Architect (LVOOP), LabVIEW Champion (NON-Kool-aid Drinker)
NEW! DSAutomation.com (Coming soon, Champions Corner)
VIs in VI.lib are Off-Limits!, Trouble with a Race Condition?

---

LOL !!! @ Ben!!!!

Whoever coded that must have worked here (customer) too!!!

Now talk about useless code!!!!  If it's No Error, then nothing is done to the error cluster values.  If there was an error, the status was ALREADY TRUE!!, so again no change!!!

I'm spending hours upon hours at changing code like this..  

Here's another WEQ, straight from the forum :

Message Edited by altenbach on 01-24-2007 01:31 PM
 

---

LabVIEW Champion . Oh, by the way, I work for peanutsKudos .

---