Make "Or Array Elements" work with arrays of clusters.

[paul_cardinale]

I should be able to to this:           But that's not allowed:     

Instead I have to do this:     

[wiebe@CARYA]

FYI, duplicate of this declined idea:

Allow "Add Array Elements", "Multiply Array Elements", "And Array Elements" and "Or Array Elements" ...

Not sure why it was declined, maybe simply lack of attention?

[MichaelBalzer]

An alternate approach would be to use a shift register in the for loop and OR the cluster with each iteration. Saves on array memory allocation too.

[wiebe@CARYA]

>An alternate approach would be to use a shift register in the for loop and OR the cluster with each iteration. Saves on array memory allocation too.

Agreed, but that only applied for the example.

If you get an array of clusters from a sub VI, it's a bit annoying you need a for loop, function and shift registers:

And (anticipating the next remark) this could be done in a malleable VI...

Any arguments against the idea, though?

[paul_cardinale]

Here it is.

[MichaelBalzer]

> Any arguments against the idea, though?

No objections either way. I'm always in favour of LabVIEW's primitives operating on more array data types, so I'll add a kudo.

[fabric]

I'll add my vote. Hopefully we get more than 4 kudos this time

[AristosQueue (NI)]

I won't add my personal kudos only because personally I've never needed this functionality. But I can see someone wanting it (and expecting it to work).

Speaking as a former member of LV R&D, the idea gives me pause... I'm not saying this is a bad idea. It may be a good idea. But it is an idea that suggests that maybe the proposed solution is too limited for the hole in LV functionality. You see, right now, it's clear what the node does and what it doesn't do. If we implemented this, I can already hear the arguments about whether the output should be a cluster of bools or a single bool... and then that we need a second node for "or cluster elts"... and then those need to be the same node and therefore need a mode... wait, I know, let's just add modes to the Or primitive itself...

Rethinking boolean logic handling for LV comes up from time to time. To me, this is one more pebble on those scales.

[_carl]

I read this post a week ago and thought "sure, but...I've never actually encountered that situation".  Yesterday I encountered it.  (So this now has my kudos.)