Rube Goldberg Code

[RayFarmer]

Actually Ray.R version didn't work in 8.6 but doing Darin way did.

[Ray.R]

Thanks Darin for fixing my Rube... 😄

I should have known better!

(what was I thinking????)

RayF,

That is strange...  Why would it not work in LV8.6?  Did you set the Search & Replace to "Regular Expression"?

[RayFarmer]

Ray.R,

Yep

[Ray.R]

I have access to LV8.6, so I will try it.. Maybe a bug...??

[Darin.K]

---

I have access to LV8.6, so I will try it.. Maybe a bug...??

---

A bug?!! That is what you call your devious code-obfuscation?  To the untrained eye it would appear that you are checking the offset past replacements which would be -1 in the case of no replacements.  No, I'll wager that the wire is actually connected to the Number of Replacements which is indeed zero when the search string is not found.  I don't even feel the need to boot LV to check my guess.

Rubes and obfuscation, throw a local variable or two in there why don't you? 

Spoiler

Prepared to eat my hat if I am wrong, but I am never not wrong.

[Ray.R]

Darin, what would I do without you?? 😉

Glad that one of us is never wrong.  Sorry about the obfuscated code. 

I thought there was a bug in my code, not in LabVIEW 😄

Guess I was having a bad day   LOL!  😉

[JÞB]

---

@Ray.R wrote:

Darin, what would I do without you?? 😉

Glad that one of us is never wrong.  Sorry about the obfuscated code. 

I thought there was a bug in my code, not in LabVIEW 😄

Guess I was having a bad day   LOL!  😉

---

Nasty Darin!... Gosh, I'm glad I am never in error!

Spoiler

OK .... I sometimes make a mistake----

[Darin.K]

If you post code to a thread designed for some hopefully good-natured mocking of others, it is hardly unreasonable to expect a little good-natured mocking in return....

[Ray.R]

that's what keeps this thread fun.

Just making sure you don't run out of supplies 😄

[altenbach]

Can you spot the unecessary code complications on the left?

(seen here, this is only the tip of the iceberg! 🐵

• We use a while loop as a FOR loop
• With every itereation we create the entire ramp from scratch*, then index out one element
• to get the wait time, we multiply it by 1000, then divide it by 1000 to get the original value.
• We increment a counter in a shift register instead of using [i]
• ....

On the right would be an equivalent code alternative... 😄

* Of course the loop invariant code handling on the compiler might sort some of the problems out, but still.....