Optionally reverse order for merge errors in order to get a better code

[Andi_S]

The merging error function forwards the first error from its inputs to its output whereby "first" the number of the input is.

If there is a sequence of VIs producing error clusters which shell be bundled in the VIs calling order the code will not look very nice - see the first picture. This could be easily improved if there would be an option (e.g.. in the context menu of the merge error function) which would reverse the order of its inputs. See the second image.

[Brian_Powell]

Personally, I would have eliminated the sequence structure and used the error in terminals on the four functions.  If a function didn't have error in, I would wrap it in a subVI that did.

[Yamaeda]

It seems i had the same idea so i'll kudo this. 🙂

[Dragis]

As Brian_Powell pointed out, it seems that for this case at least there are better ways to handle the errors. You can not use a Merge Errors and chain the errors (like one would normally do) or you could incrementally merge the errors in a chain, again not needing the sequence at all. Perhaps you can expand on the idea a little?

[Andi_S]

Maybe the sample with the sequence is not the best one in terms of programming style but it shows very good what I'm meaning: The errors wires in the block diagram coming sometimes in reverse order than needed for merging. I don't want to start a discussion if sequences are necessary or not.

[Darren]

Any idea that has received less than 4 kudos within 4 years after posting will be automatically declined.