LabVIEW
race condition
Hi krispiekream,
either use
-an additional NOT
-a compound boolean operation, here you can set a negation for each individual input (and the output too)
-think BOOLEAN and use a different boolean operator
(Several weeks of apprenticeship spent for such boolean calculations...)
either use
-an additional NOT
-a compound boolean operation, here you can set a negation for each individual input (and the output too)
-think BOOLEAN and use a different boolean operator
(Several weeks of apprenticeship spent for such boolean calculations...)
krispiekream wrote:
in my case is if the empty path is NOT TRUE?
Easiest, just invert the output. You could also play with swapping the true/false cases of the case structure and modifying the boolean logic before it. 🙂
What are you doing??? I know this is not causing the race condition, then again... who knows... but it is worth mentioning.
Why do you place the error cluster inside this other cluster? and also wire a Local Variable if you use a cluster? I'm confused...
krispiekream wrote:
- oh yeah. about the error cluster. that is one of my question too. i dont want to be doing that all the time. it gets boring and waste alot of time, but the reason why i did that because i want to run my wire, left to right. And i dont want it to face race condition, therefore i run everything left to right. if it is coming error out, then i would bundle it, and then unbundle it when i face another subvi to let the data flow? can you sugguest a solution for me? i really dont like doing it that way.
Wiring from left to right does not automatically prevent a race condition 😄
As a coding practice, I never put the error cluster inside another cluster. I treat that one as a completely different wire independent from all the others. It goes from VI to VI (function to function), and even if the sub-vi does not generate any error, I still provide it and route it inside the sub-vi in order to manage dataflow.
R
krispiekream wrote:
in my case is if the empty path is NOT TRUE?
I probably would use an "implies" function and (2) swap the two cases of the case structure.
Message Edited by altenbach on 07-25-2008 11:57 AM
I just want to give credit to Krispiekream. It seems like whatever he posts, he gets a lot of "why are you doing that" and "don't do that, do this". But over the course of reading his messages, there have been some major improvements in his coding techniques, and he keeps coming coming to the forum and looking for further improvements.
Reading his messages there have been major improvements in MY coding. Just from this thread:
@Ravens Fan wrote:
I just want to give credit to Krispiekream. It seems like whatever he posts, he gets a lot of "why are you doing that" and "don't do that, do this". But over the course of reading his messages, there have been some major improvements in his coding techniques, and he keeps coming coming to the forum and looking for further improvements.
1) I had never used the format string function. Much better than converting AND appending.
2) I didn't know that you could negate the input of a compound arithmetic.
3) I didn't know about the "implies" function.
God, a Vulcan mind meld would speed this process up!
A big thank you to all of you who contribute here.
