Brain Cramp "AND No Error"

[JÞB]

We still need the invert circle on the output so there is limited value removing it on inputs.

[altenbach]

---

@rolfk wrote:

I usually use the second case anyways (sans inverter)..

---

Exactly. There is a reason that the "collection" tools inverted the status output compared to old variant attribute equivalent. Having a TRUE for the exception is more consistent. (see also slide 45 of my NI Week presentation)

• Get Variant Attribute: TRUE if found
• Look in Map/Set: TRUE if not found (More consistent with typical error handling!)

[altenbach]

---

@JÞB wrote:

We still need the invert circle on the output so there is limited value removing it on inputs.

---

I disagree. With suitable graphic changes on the right half, we could eliminate the circle on the output too.

[Kevin_Price]

I'd like bigger inversion circles on both the input and output side to make them more prominent.  It's especially helpful in the case of "thicker" wires such as error wires (or boolean or numeric clusters) that make the small circles harder to see than normal thin scalar wires.

I mostly like the inversion symbol on the input terminals as well.  My only reluctance is the lack of symmetry for the output terminal side. I'm not particularly fond of using fill color on the terminals b/c it doesn't unambiguously answer the question, "which color leaves the value alone and which color means inversion?".

I use those nodes for numerics as well because they expand to multiple terminals *and* help me avoid wire intersections when my denominator wire originates from somewhere above my numerator wire.  But the logic symbol for boolean inversion would still be fine by me -- after all, the inversion circles are *already* not a purely natural symbol for numerics.

-Kevin P

[Frozen]

---

@Kevin_Price wrote:

I use those nodes for numerics as well because they expand to multiple terminals *and* help me avoid wire intersections when my denominator wire originates from somewhere above my numerator wire. 

---

And I though I was picky about crossing wires. 😮

[JÞB]

Regardless, the thread topic appears like it should properly be "Brain Cramp OR Error"

[Hooovahh]

---

@santo_13 wrote:

One more reason I would use the typical OR or AND functions instead of Compound Arithmetic if there are only 2 nodes.

---

If only the standard functions were resizable, then I'd use them more. 

@altenbach wrote:

We don't have no reason not to discuss this not again... not!

---

Wow a quintuple negative. Does that mean we do have some reasons, to not discuss this again?