What's your use case for this? If it behaves as shown in your image, then it will only pass the value from the last iteration. If anything, I would expect that a more valuable approach would be an array of all the values.
Of course, both can easily be done with an additional tunnel, but you already know that.
yes, indeed, if the last value is not indexed then the whole array is not concatenated.
There are several ways to solve this case... It was just a piece of test code, nothing else.
Of course, I can solve this case with an additional tunnel. It is difficult for me to explain the background of this code (my English is not good enough). But ... overall ... What I am suggesting is :
I think it is a pity that we can't use the output of a conditional tunnel like we can do it with the selector tunnet of a case structure.
"I guess you are refering to something similar ... "
no.
The output of the conditional tunnel will always be a boolean (never a boolean array) I'm talking about a behavior where the conditional tunnel would behave in the same way that the selector tunnel of a Case Structure.
If the conditional did have an outside terminal, I would expect its type to be an array, not a single value. That ambiguity alone between your expectation and mine would argue against giving it an outside terminal.
I've never needed this. If you do, create a new tunnel for that value. That way everyone will know what is going on.
The meditation was about the meaning of making the conditional indexing object be both an input (or sink, which it is) and an output (or source, which it isn't).
Strictly speaking the Case Selector is an input only and the fact that we can pull the wire past it into a case, like so:
<==== There is nothing connected INTO the case selector, so the VI is broken (but not the wire!)
is some kind of a curiosity, akin to the trap I fell into with the Conditional Indexing input.
In fact, if you try to move the autoindexing terminal away from where it is sitting in this example:
you'll get this:
where I defy you to see the hidden wire going from the condition Indexing terminal to the (Boolean) autoindeixing terminal.
My take is that it looks like a normal tunnel so it should also behave like a normal tunnel.
Regarding the "Array vs Scalar" issue, I think it makes sense to link it to the tunnel it is a condition for. It is completely valid to have a conditional "Last Value" tunnel as well as a conditionsl "Indexing" tunnel. Int he first case the output of the condition tunnel should be scalar, in the second it should be an array. Easy peasy.
Not QUITE so easy peasy is the bahaviour for "Concatening" conditional tunnels. I would vote for "Array" here but the length of the actual output and the conditional output will be different....
The length of the arrays will likely be different with the conditional indexing (only takes 1 false to make the current output of a different length than the conditional array output).
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
