Need a generic control reference

[LeroyBogz]

Hi All,

Please see attached.

I'm trying to simplify a VI here that has a bunch of controls and wires by making lookup dictionaries for a specific data type. Example: Create a variant lookup table from an array of string references and their names, call it "system info".

The problem is that I can only group references of a particular type together for a lookup table - I end up making a polymorphic "ref array to dictionary" VI and this isn't flexible.

Is it possible to have a more generic VI that doesnt care what type of references I'm taking in?

Oh, P.S. I hate clusters.

[Michel_Gauvin]

You can use the "to more generic".

[LeroyBogz]

Hey! Thanks a lot for the input.

After going down the path you sent me down, I believe I may have found an even easier way.

By right clicking on my ref in, apparently (havent ever played with this) I can select VI server class and just make it a generic control. Then I can wire anything I please right in to this subvi and my "ref array to dictionary" is no longer polymorphic!

WOOHOO

Thanks brah.

[Michel_Gauvin]

Glad you got it working.  Mark it as accepted solution.

Michel

[paul_cardinale]

In the example shown, the 'To More Generic Class' function is completely unnecessary.  The references will be coerced to a common class at the input of 'Build Array'

[mikeporter]

Well yes and no. They will be coerced to a common type, which in this case is a control reference. However, the readability stinks as it is easy to miss those little dots. Better to do the explicit cast so there is no question what the result is.

Mike...

[paul_cardinale]

I disagree.  I my opinion, the code is more readable without the 'To More Generic Class' functions.  Even if you don't notice those coercion dots, there's nothing confusing about it.

There are cases where a latent bug may be caused by undesirable coercion, but this isn't one of them.

[Michel_Gauvin]

Here's a forum discussion link to coercion dot, so anyone can make their mind and you may add your though there.

http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/Dealing-with-Coercion-Dots/m-p/926925/highlight/true#M416411

The simple example was to show that classes exist in LabVIEW, simple as that.

Michel

[mikeporter]

The big point to be made here is that going to a lot of trouble just to avoid using clusters because you "hate" them (an absurd proposition on its face) is a hack. Putting them into an array is misusing the array datatype. A array holds a collection of the same thing, like a collection of voltage readings or a collection of identifier strings. What you are doing is forcing into an array a collection of fundamentally different things.

Mike...

[LeroyBogz]

Not really. References are not "different things".

I get to decide what is the "same" (bundling is also putting different things together). The inability to programmatically cluster things is a huge disadvantage to clusters in addition to their slow lookup speed.