Loop Stop with multiple inputs

[M-A.D]

The loop stop function now accepts errors directly which is an improvement but there are many cases where loops must stop based on multiple sources.

If the stop function had several inputs (eg 4 - one one each side), this would allow multiple errors or stop commands all OR'd internally within the stop function to work without the clumsy OR function that is so commonly used.

There is no reason the OR couldn't be built into it and make everyone's live's easier. It would also simplify coding and increase speed of development.

[crossrulz]

If more than two conditions, just use the Compound Arithmetic function set to OR.  I don't see this as an issue.  I'd rather have the readability of seeing the OR function there.

[wiebe@CARYA]

What if you need to AND the inputs? Or XOR them? Or invert one input? I prefer Crossrulz' solution.

Do you propose 4 inputs at the top and 4 at the bottom? Or 4 left and 4 right? The last option would be really bad.

[crossrulz]

I think the OP was suggesting an input on each side of the conditional terminal.  Which is a horrible idea since you are then promoting having inputs on the right side of a function.

[M-A.D]

A huge number of loops use the error and at least one other stop condition to stop the loop so every time adding an OR function, whether compound or not, is an annoyance which could easily be avoided by adding this feature. The OR would become implicit with the stop function in that anything that inputs a true into it would stop the loop and readability would increase. Even just two points would be enough for most cases (error and a button or variable).

You are correct that the compound arithmetic method works well for versitility and for those cases but for the simple case which is so often encountered of just an error and a button the inclusion of say another input would be most beneficial.

As for positioning, the best place would probably be (if two were there) one on the left and one on the top (since it usually sits in the bottom right corner). And the best thing would be to avoid putting any on the right side, so maybe have two on the left?

[wiebe@CARYA]

>I think the OP was suggesting an input on each side of the conditional terminal.  Which is a horrible idea since you are then promoting having inputs on the right side of a function.

I though I'd give him the benifit of the doubt. Top and Bottom are sides too, right?

[wiebe@CARYA]

In one of my current projects, I have 25 while loops. 24 while loops use a boolean or an error. Only one had an error and a boolean, and one input was inverted.

[M-A.D]

Yes in those cases it would be useless since there is only one input but when you have a project with a unified loop stop function there is always going to be two, error and the loop stop function in every loop. When there loop stop function to stop all loops and shut down a program and all subcomponents it is a very usefull feature. I agree that in some cases there will be no use for this but in many cases for proper loop stop functionality this would make things much easier

[wiebe@CARYA]

>in many cases for proper loop stop functionality this would make things much easier

I'd say in only a few cases (o out of 25 in my case) it will make things a little bit easier.

This forum is a democracy, so we'll wait and see how it goes.

Biggest disadvantage is that this (I think) will be a huge effort to implement. Everywhere where there is now exactly one terminal, there has to be an array of terminals (in scripting part of VI server). But perhaps NI has to make that comment, and perhaps I'm wrong.

[jcarmody]

> This forum is a democracy, so we'll wait and see how it goes.

Using the "American" definition of democracy 😄 Let the people vote on what they want and give it to them if it suits our purposes.

[wiebe@CARYA]

> This forum is a democracy, so we'll wait and see how it goes.

Using the Dutch "polder model"; Settle in the middle (2 inputs on one side?).