06-22-2012 12:58 PM - edited 06-22-2012 12:58 PM
@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.
06-22-2012 01:28 PM
NO!
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
06-22-2012 02:37 PM
@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.
06-22-2012 04:23 PM - edited 06-22-2012 04:27 PM
@Ben wrote:
NO!
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
06-23-2012 08:53 PM
If it gets Jeff K on our side, I plug all day.
Ben
06-23-2012 10:06 PM
06-25-2012 07:33 AM
@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.
06-25-2012 07:54 AM
@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.
06-25-2012 08:03 AM
@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.
06-25-2012 08:17 AM
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.