LabVIEW

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

stacked sequences


@P Anand wrote:
I won`t say that it has to be removed because still it has some use like forcing the code to execute a part of the code which does not have error wire.

You don't need a stacked sequence structure to accomplish this. However, like the post by for(imastuck) indicates you can't simply get rid of it because it would break too much legacy code.



Mark Yedinak
Certified LabVIEW Architect
LabVIEW Champion

"Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald - Gordon Lightfoot
0 Kudos
Message 11 of 25
(1,001 Views)

NO!Smiley Wink

 

Don't get rid of the Stacked Sequence!

 

I will use a Stacked Sequence in my very often.

 

Frame 1 - contains all of the code.

 

Frame 2 - Contains an image of the State Diagram that documents the code flow. All I have to do is flip to frame 2 to see the design.

 

Of course if NI would restore the State Diagram Editor to its former glory I would not need the stack sequence.

 

 

 

 

Ben

Retired Senior Automation Systems Architect with Data Science Automation LabVIEW Champion Knight of NI and Prepper LinkedIn Profile YouTube Channel
Message 12 of 25
(990 Views)

@Ben wrote:

Of course if NI would restore the State Diagram Editor to its former glory I would not need the stack sequence.


Ben, I'm glad you never miss a chance for that plug.


GCentral
There are only two ways to tell somebody thanks: Kudos and Marked Solutions
Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines
"Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God" - 2 Corinthians 3:5
Message 13 of 25
(976 Views)

@Ben wrote:

NO!Smiley Wink

 

Don't get rid of the Stacked Sequence!

 

I will use a Stacked Sequence in my very often.

 

Frame 1 - contains all of the code.

 

Frame 2 - Contains an image of the State Diagram that documents the code flow. All I have to do is flip to frame 2 to see the design.

 

Of course if NI would restore the State Diagram Editor to its former glory I would not need the stack sequence.

 

 

 

 

Ben


 

PLUG #2!!!

 

Edit: I should really read all the responses first, I'll see crossrulz beat me to it. I'll add a link to another one for good measure

Message 14 of 25
(954 Views)

If it gets Jeff K on our side, I plug all day.

 

SDE.png

 

Smiley Happy

 

Ben

Retired Senior Automation Systems Architect with Data Science Automation LabVIEW Champion Knight of NI and Prepper LinkedIn Profile YouTube Channel
0 Kudos
Message 15 of 25
(920 Views)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Stacked Sequence Structure. All problems stem from the abomination known as the sequence local.
Message 16 of 25
(911 Views)

@P Anand wrote:
I won`t say that it has to be removed because still it has some use like forcing the code to execute a part of the code which does not have error wire.

Although I do not agree with your assertion about its need (you can force program flow using other methods, i.e. Flat Sequence), I do see the problems you would have with legacy code.  That's something I had not considered.

I am not familiar with FPGA; therefore, I do not see the reasoning behind using a stack sequence with it.  Perhaps someone can expand on this thought on why a Stacked Sequence would work better than a State machine if using FPGA.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reese, (former CLAD, future CLD)

Some people call me the Space Cowboy!
Some call me the gangster of love.
Some people call me MoReese!
...I'm right here baby, right here, right here, right here at home
0 Kudos
Message 17 of 25
(866 Views)

@MoReese wrote:

@P Anand wrote:
I won`t say that it has to be removed because still it has some use like forcing the code to execute a part of the code which does not have error wire.

Although I do not agree with your assertion about its need (you can force program flow using other methods, i.e. Flat Sequence), I do see the problems you would have with legacy code.  That's something I had not considered.

I am not familiar with FPGA; therefore, I do not see the reasoning behind using a stack sequence with it.  Perhaps someone can expand on this thought on why a Stacked Sequence would work better than a State machine if using FPGA.


Whether its a Flat sequence or a stacked sequence I would use only single frame to force the data flow :D. I forgot to state the use of this in larger code. We use to initialize the code in one frame then run the code in another frame then re-init the code in the final frame. I am not sure about the legacy code.

-----

The best solution is the one you find it by yourself
0 Kudos
Message 18 of 25
(855 Views)

@P Anand wrote:

 

Whether its a Flat sequence or a stacked sequence I would use only single frame to force the data flow :D. I forgot to state the use of this in larger code. We use to initialize the code in one frame then run the code in another frame then re-init the code in the final frame. I am not sure about the legacy code.


Yes, but you can do the same thing with a State machine.  What I am talking about are uses for a Stacked Sequence where a State machine just won't do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reese, (former CLAD, future CLD)

Some people call me the Space Cowboy!
Some call me the gangster of love.
Some people call me MoReese!
...I'm right here baby, right here, right here, right here at home
0 Kudos
Message 19 of 25
(844 Views)

Yes if my design has Init >> Execute code >> Re-init and exit do you think it is necessary to use state machine?. Because this sequence of execution is never going to change and I feel it is unnecessary to bring a state machine into play.

-----

The best solution is the one you find it by yourself
0 Kudos
Message 20 of 25
(835 Views)