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.

[AristosQueue (NI)]

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

Really? 🙂

However, this member of the R&D Oligarchy likes the idea. How about something like this:

[ToeCutter]

If this was implemented right (Aristos' is barking up the right tree IMO), it could speed development and make the diagram more compact, so count me in.

[wiebe@CARYA]

It's a democracy, but NI has absolute veto rights.

Come to think about it, it's more like a dictatorship, with liberate freedom of speech, and rights to demonstrate.

[wiebe@CARYA]

AristoQueue,

Then also implement inversion: indicated by a dot left outside the node, just like the compound arithmetic:

[LordNobady]

I like the idee In general. AristosQueue has a right metode to do it.

[Intaris]

Personally i dont like it because i can no longer set a conditional breakpoint on the stop condition. I also think it is less clear what is going on.

[wiebe@CARYA]

Good point Intaris.

[AristosQueue (NI)]

Intaris: the conditional breakpoint is a good point; still, the simplicity of editing something so common appeals to me, so perhaps it might be worth kicking around ways to still allow a conditional breakpoint on the terminal directly?

Alternatively, maybe we just make it easier to "pull a compound arith" out of the stop terminal with a single gesture instead of having to go through the palettes and/or quick drop? I'm not sure how that would work, but I've never really considered just how often I do this before now, and now it's going to bug me every time I do it. 🙂

[Darin.K]

I do not like the stretchy terminal, but I am a little intrigued by the multiple stop terminals.  The stop decision for a loop often occurs at the beginning (this is the last time), or at the end (something went wrong).  Now you have to string wires all over to the single stop terminal.  With multiple terminals these could be avoided.  All of the stop when true inputs are OR'd and all of the continue when true inputs are AND'd.  Plus each terminal could have its natural direction so there is less negation going on.

[wiebe@CARYA]

Multiple stop terminals will be a nightmare to debug, if you'd ask me.