LabVIEW
Clearing arrays and clusters automatically
RTSLVU wrote:OMG!
Well, altenbach is traveling, so I guess you'll just have to settle for the rest of us. I only managed a 10x reduction. 
smercurio_fc wrote:If I were doing this I would change the structure of the data as the program holds it to make it more flexible. Jeff already alluded to this. For instance, consider this structure:
This gives it a more hierachical structure and it greatly benefits from allowing you to use arrays to easily scale your program. For example, let's say you want to add a measurement type. Nothing to change. The data structure already takes that into account. A simple subVI can be used to parse out each section into the structure. Attached is an example (note that the clusters should be typedefs - I did not go that far) of your VI modified to use this structure. As you can see, I do the same thing you were doing in less than 1/10 of the code, and I have the added benefit of a flexible structure. I am not telling you to do it this way, but this is to show you a different approach. It's possible that this may not work too well for what you're doing in the larger program, but it should give you an idea of how to think more hierarchical using arrays and clusters.
As for the file format: A different file format would make the parsing a little easier, but it's not mandatory. If I were to choose a different file format I would use a standard .ini file format so that each section can be extract directly with the "Chan", "Label" being keys, or I would use an XML file format since the XML file would give me the structure directly. With XML you define your own file format. You can start here for a general introduction to XML. LabVIEW has some built-in XML tools, and you can also use LabXML or Easy XML from JKI.
Ok, so looking at this with a freash set of eyes this morning I have to say I do not understand it (Is it an array of arrays of arrays? ) nor can I figure out how to get anything out of it with out another "Rube Goldberg" .
I am begining to regret taking on a project this large...
You have arrays of clusters, and the clusters contain some form of identifier and another array of clusters. Using arrays of clusters of arrays is a common way to allow you to create varying length arrays as a "1D" structure. Multidimensional arrays require that the dimensions be rectangular, meaning that if you have 9 columns for one row, then all rows must have 9 column, even if for a specific row you only need to have 4 (and it may only make sense to have 4).
In this particular case I took a look at your data and determined that you basically have several lists:
- List of modules, which were called "System 1", "System 2", etc.
- List of measurements for each module.
- Triead of channel/label/scale for each measurement
The structure I created has an outer array that's the list of modules. This is an array of clusters. The cluster contains 2 elements: module name and list of measurements that are supposed to be done with that module. The list of measurements is implemented as an array of clusters. The cluster contains 2 elements: measurement type and a list of the triads for each measurement of that specific type. This last part I arbitrarily made it into a cluster of 3 arrays, but it could just as well have been an array of clusters. This last cluster would be a cluster of 3 elements: channel, label, and scale.
At first glance this appears complicated, but it's really not that complicated if you just think of it in hierarchical terms. You're used to looking at the data in a "flat" manner which is why it appears complicated.
As for getting the information out, you do not need to resort to Rube Goldberg implementations. For example, if you want to get the list of measurements for a specific module, all you would need to do is this:
You can then iterate over the list of measurements and program your device. I don't know what's involved with this part, which is why I said I don't know how well/convenient that structure would be for you. If you show us what's involved in the actual programming of the instruments, then I can comment on that. It's possible that instead of the inner-most structure being a cluster of 3 arrays would be easier if it were an array of clusters as I had mentioned.
My point of showing you this was to have you think differently, and to show that when possible, think hierarchically, as this can often make code more scalable and easier to manage. Believe it or not. 
RST.....
(I won't include the "LV" portion to protect you)
AKA splitstring@"LV";
return <WEC> ( Wire equivilent code)
I almost missed the semicolon and the <tab> / to make the comments
Wellcome to LabVIEW!!!
Turn off the auto tool selection and HAVE FUN! (Oppps- did I <tab> or <Caps-Lock>?````~~~~~
