Brain Cramp "AND No Error"

[paul_cardinale]

I've used this many times:  Allow a TRUE to pass through only if there is no error.

But deep in a piece of code, I had this mistake:  It took me forever to spot it.  It was hard to track down because it would manifest only occasionally when called from a series of Drag-Over events.

I could chalk it up to old age; but I've been having brain cramps my entire life.

[santo_13]

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

But this is quite possible when using Compound Arithmetic with a bunch of nodes and with the invert logic per node.

[altenbach]

... one problem is also that the invert circle gets completely camouflaged by the error wire here.

There are plenty of ideas. Personally I like this version, which can actually eliminate the invert circles completely, making use of that unused blank space. 😄

[paul_cardinale]

---

@altenbach wrote:

... one problem is also that the invert circle gets completely camouflaged by the error wire here.

There are plenty of ideas. Personally I like this version, which can actually eliminate the invert circles completely, making use of that unused blank space. 😄

---

I like it, but I would keep the circle:

[thols]

---

@paul_cardinale wrote:

---

@altenbach wrote:

... one problem is also that the invert circle gets completely camouflaged by the error wire here.

---

I like it, but I would keep the circle:

---

But then you could interpret that as: negate the inverted input...

[paul_cardinale]

---

@thols wrote:

---

@paul_cardinale wrote:

---

@altenbach wrote:

... one problem is also that the invert circle gets completely camouflaged by the error wire here.

---

I like it, but I would keep the circle:

---

But then you could interpret that as: negate the inverted input...

---

Do you interpret this  "negate the inverted input"?

[thols]

---

@paul_cardinale wrote:

---

@thols wrote:

---

@paul_cardinale wrote:

---

@altenbach wrote:

... one problem is also that the invert circle gets completely camouflaged by the error wire here.

---

I like it, but I would keep the circle:

---

But then you could interpret that as: negate the inverted input...

---

Do you interpret this  "negate the inverted input"?

---

oops 😉

[altenbach]

---

@paul_cardinale wrote:.

Do you interpret this  "negate the inverted input"?

---

We talked about that almost 10 years ago. 😄

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

[thols]

I think I had brain cramp for a moment, first when I posted, and now.

But I was not wrong about the double negation. I had just filtered that out since the beginning of time.

[rolfk]

I usually use the second case anyways (sans inverter). The output of the compound node is most of the times wired to the loop termination terminal and I want to have the loop stop on error OR when the condition has been met (usually trying to connect or such, searching something in an array, or similar). The boolean is then also wired outside of the loop with "Last" tunnel mode and used directly as indication of success to perform some further things on the found resource.

And yes those inversion dots are sometimes difficult to notice. I had screen configuration where they would sometimes completely disappear and you had to let LabVIEW refresh the diagram completely to make them appear again. And on high resolution screens they can get so tiny that they are almost invisible anyhow, even when LabVIEW doesn't "forget" to draw them.