Flat sequence and stacked sequence

[muks]

But still sorry tst didnt mean it

[tst]

Unlike others, I don't really care about the 1 star rating. You can all relax.

---

JB wrote:

Does it make sense to write descriptions if it is so laborious to find and to read them ?

---

As far as I can tell, the only difference between what's currently available and your suggestion is that the items with a description will have a visual mark and that you'll be able to add it to anything (currently, primitive and structures don't display the description you give them).

I'm not particualrly enthusiastic about either point. For the first point, I'm not sure how to achieve that in a diagram which already has a lot of visual elements without being distracting.

For the second point, I don't feel that I need descriptions on primitives as most don't have meaning by their own. For structures, you can display their label and even style to look very nice.

If you want a workaround, create a folder of VIs called "documentation" and give those VIs bright red icons. For each VI, fill in the description property with your comment and you're done. Hovering over the VI will display the comment in the help window. That should fill both your requirements at the price of managing more VIs.

[JB]

tst a écrit:

As far as I can tell, the only difference between what's currently available and your suggestion is that the items with a description will have a visual mark and that you'll be able to add it to anything (currently, primitive and structures don't display the description you give them).

Yes I meant a visual mark. Currently, it is already possible to write a description for any primitive.

I'm not particualrly enthusiastic about either point. For the first point, I'm not sure how to achieve that in a diagram which already has a lot of visual elements without being distracting.

This would indeed be a big challenge for NI. (colored border, shadow...)

For the second point, I don't feel that I need descriptions on primitives as most don't have meaning by their own. For structures, you can display their label and even style to look very nice.

This would just be a way to comment the code without wasting precious place on the screen and by using an already existing but perfectible LV feature.

If you want a workaround, create a folder of VIs called "documentation" and give those VIs bright red icons. For each VI, fill in the description property with your comment and you're done. Hovering over the VI will display the comment in the help window. That should fill both your requirements at the price of managing more VIs.

Creating a new VI for each comment would certainly need more effort than Right-click on a primitive >> Description and Tip...

Just my humble opinion...

[tst]

I think what you basically want is for NI to add a comment object. This object will have a distinct appearance and when double clicked will open up a window where you can add text (or maybe even formatted text and images, CHM, etc). A visit to the Product Suggestion Center might be in order. You may wish to include a link to this thread.

As for the moment, here's another workaround -

1. Create a comment class. Make its wire prominent (that's why I suggested a class).
2. Create 2 VIs for it, one with the object going in and one with the object going out. Make their icons small.
3. In a third VI, wire the two VIs together so that you basically have a rectangle which stands out.
4. Place that VI in a palette using the merge VI feature.
5. You now have a palette VI which you can drop on the diagram at any time and then edit the description for the wire going between the two VIs, which will then appear in the context help window.

[Graziano]

---

@tst wrote:

I think what you basically want is for NI to add a comment object. This object will have a distinct appearance and when double clicked will open up a window where you can add text (or maybe even formatted text and images, CHM, etc).

---

Yes, I subscribe for comment object! Why do we have to work around to insert a comment? Every programming languagew has it's own commenting scheme, why not LV?

Of course, a comment object would be more useful if it will be able to be linked to automatic doc generators, like doxygen.

graziano

[muks]

From flat sequence to commenting.............But was a nice healthy discussion.Thanx for all your reply

[Ray.R]

Stepping back in a bit late...

I agree with JB that occasionally, you need a large comment.  I happens when describing a long math algorithm so that the next guy can have a clue at how and why you did it that way.  I place the description both in the code and within the VI description.  Makes for a long description, but what theheck.. It's not that often and I want to make sure that they can find it.

R

[proph]

When it comes to splitting hairs, would the stacked sequence be more efficient because all the data tunnels are defined already? I think they should be the same BUT I am looking at this pretty bogus CLAD sample exam and in Q40 it claims that stacked sequences are faster. Pretty sure the sample exam is wrong

Also in Q 16 it claims sub vi 's use less memory which is false right?

[altenbach]

That's now the second time you posted that doc. Seems ancient (e.g. pink error wires). Where did you get it?

A subVI only uses less memory if it is placed multiple times and not reentrant.

Almost every LabVIEW versions made improvements to the compiler and things can change. A sequence structure (stacked or flat) is not the step to be optimized, the content of the structure should be the focus. The speed of a sequence is infinite compared to anything else.

[RavensFan]

Are you creating zombie threads?

You are commenting in an 11-year old thread.