Will this always work?

[GregFreeman]

I'm a little worried there could be some case where this wouldn't come out to true. If so, is there a better way to do it? Just noticed if ucrrent min = value to check it will say new min even if there isn't, so I will account for that. But I'm more concerned about the equal comparison between value to check and min

[billko]

---

@for(imstuck) wrote:

I'm a little worried there could be some case where this wouldn't come out to true. If so, is there a better way to do it? Just noticed if ucrrent min = value to check it will say new min even if there isn't, so I will account for that. But I'm more concerned about the equal comparison between value to check and min

---

From your post, I'm not certain whether your concerns mimic mine, but I'd be a little worried about comparing two floating point values.

[Henrik_Volkers · Accepted solution]

If you have concerns, why not ValueToCheck<CurrentMin and use the output for NewMin and an input select ?

(Sorry, no LV on this PC)

[GregFreeman]

If it directly copies the value coming in when ValueToCheck is the new minimum, I don't think there are any concerns. I am assuming it does this. But, then I believe -0 and 0 are the only things I'd have to worry about.

For this particular min max comparison, there isn't much of an issue because if it's off due to rounding, it doesn't matter from my point of view. They will just get a min with a new timestamp of the time the min occured at. Not really a big deal. More for my own knowledge.

[RavensFan]

Why not check to see if the value to check is less than the current minimum?

[GregFreeman]

---

@Henrik_Volkers wrote:

If you have concerns, why not ValueToCheck<CurrentMin and use the output for NewMin and an input select ?

(Sorry, no LV on this PC)

---

Doh. It's Monday...