06-17-2008 12:42 PM
06-17-2008 01:07 PM
06-17-2008 02:25 PM
06-18-2008 01:01 AM
06-18-2008 06:56 AM
Hi RayF,
I used to program that way... using Locals... And I had some strange behaviors to clean up after the code ... grew...
I now pass info using other methods that are more suitable for scalability.. I know it makes the code bigger at the beginning, but it is more robust.
As a matter of fact, I now implement an architecture that often avoids having two loops.. I prefer that. The second loop is often not necessary.
RayR
06-23-2008 06:56 PM - edited 06-23-2008 06:59 PM
Nothing serious with the following example.. Simple solution was to use a shift register.
from: http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&message.id=334278#M334278
07-01-2008 01:29 PM - edited 07-01-2008 01:33 PM
Someone is afraid of wiring directly... This is probably more a Goldberg.
Actually, why is it needed if the value is almost immediately reset (it the sweep was complete)? The only thing between setting the sweep complete value and resetting it is writing to a spreadsheet which should be relatively quick..
Maybe a bad example all together of Local abuse... I just don't see why sweep complete is needed at all.. 😮
from: http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&thread.id=336680
07-07-2008 07:22 AM - edited 07-07-2008 07:23 AM
We're off to the races...
From: http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&message.id=338085
07-07-2008 08:09 AM
The only race condition I see is the error cluster for motor vs the time delay.
Can you spot another?
Ben
07-07-2008 08:10 AM