BreakPoint
Rube Goldberg Code
A friend of mine was slavishly converting a C program that dealt with binary arrays and came up with this:
old
new
Message Edited by JeffOverton on 03-12-2008 03:17 PM
Even if the Add Array Elements didn't exist (* or math functions were not polymorphic and no access to array functions), the contents of the loop should have been simpified to the following:
* had to write the disclamers before Altenbach sees this post 😄
Message Edited by JoeLabView on 03-12-2008 05:13 PM
Well, it does not really matter, because the output is folded anyway, but somehow the alternative at the bottom is so much more readable. 😄
(The "hard way" was found in the model function of:
http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&view=by_date_ascending&message.id=308840#M308840 )
Message Edited by altenbach on 03-13-2008 11:21 PM
I'm submitting myself for a response to this thread. It's circuitous, but I think it kind of has to be.
If you want to degoldberg it a bit, I believe you should be able to combine the first and third nodes into the second one without changing the behavior, because property nodes execute top-to-bottom. It should be tested, though.
JeffOverton wrote:
I'm submitting myself for a response to this thread. It's circuitous, but I think it kind of has to be.
Yup,
Actions like this:
Are perfectly legal (Apart from the coercion dots of course.....)
Shane.
Message Edited by Intaris on 03-26-2008 03:56 AM
Message Edited by Intaris on 03-26-2008 03:56 AM
Actions like this:
Are perfectly legal (Apart from the coercion dots of course.....)
Shane.
Message Edited by Intaris on 03-26-2008 03:56 AM
Message Edited by Intaris on 03-26-2008 03:56 AM
Well, we have an array in a shift register and need to clear it once in a while.
Of course the first thing that comes to mind would be to use "delete from array" with an "Inf" diagram constant wired to the lenght ...right?.... NOT!
