Darren's Weekly Nugget 06/29/2009

[CoastalMaineBird]

Can you pl post a snapshot of your Ctl file?

I will. It's a 1236-wide Strict typedef.  (Strict typedefs can't be resized, remember?)

 

[RobCole]

One I found interesting is that people in our office lost marks on their CLD exams because they used Type Defs instead of strict Type Defs. Does it really matter for that type of program?

[Darren]

---

Robert Cole wrote:
One I found interesting is that people in our office lost marks on their CLD exams because they used Type Defs instead of strict Type Defs. Does it really matter for that type of program?

---

Interesting...in my opinion, there shouldn't be any differentiation between the two on the CLD.  I've emailed one of my colleagues in the Certification department to discuss the issue further.

[LabBEAN]

At one time I had to use regular Type Def's since Strict Type Def's used to cause errors when setting their value by reference during a custom INI importation, but I can't seem to make it happen now.  Maybe that was fixed with 8.6.x?

I've posted an idea on the LabVIEW Idea Exchange:

http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/idb-p/labviewideas

to help bridge an area not properly covered by either Strict or Non-Strict Type Definitions.

Message Edited by LabBEAN on 07-03-2009 03:23 PM

[Matthew_Kelton]

I also lost points on my CLD exam because of using strict type defs when type defs should have been used.  I also prefer using strict type defs unless I have a specific reason not to.

---

Darren wrote:

---

Robert Cole wrote:
One I found interesting is that people in our office lost marks on their CLD exams because they used Type Defs instead of strict Type Defs. Does it really matter for that type of program?

---

Interesting...in my opinion, there shouldn't be any differentiation between the two on the CLD.  I've emailed one of my colleagues in the Certification department to discuss the issue further.

---