What about the bit in the blue markup!!!
Message Edited by Ray Farmer on 01-25-2007 07:00 AM
WARNING - BAD PUN AHEAD!
Somehow I always knew LabVIEW was referring to ME when it complained about "Insane Objects"......
Or in your case, that should be "InShane Objects"...
I can hear the "Boo"s all the way here.
I am fixing new code... You see what I'm up against...
Do I need to explain what's wrong with the array indexing in this example? (and I have better examples coming up )
OK... I shouldn't say "wrong"... maybe that's too strong... How about inefficient? or simply Goldberged code, maybe??
Message Edited by JoeLabView on 01-25-200708:59 AM
Message Edited by JoeLabView on 01-25-2007 09:04 AM
Can't edit anymore...
This is the image I wanted to post..
Here's a fun one..
It compares elements in two array to see if there is a match..
I added the comment in the bottom Case Statement. I should have removed it altogether..
Message Edited by JoeLabView on 01-25-2007 09:24 AM
That one took me a minute to figure out, but yes, assuming that there are no other cases, or that they are the same, then simply using the equel node should be enough. That is really confusing.
It gets worse to the left of it.. I can't show it because of vi names... But imagine that what's in front of it came from a previous screen within a Stacked Sequential Structure. Some of which have multiple levels of embedded frames!!
Here's one such sub-vi within that code. Not that it's wrong... Just : WHY??? (PS: that is the entire content of the sub-vi)
Message Edited by JoeLabView on 01-25-2007 10:37 AM
I assume you're turrning all this into a "one-liner", just operating on the 2D array ("in place", of course).