Concatenating Terminal Control Reference

[GregFreeman]

Any particular reason this won't work?

[BowenM]

I was under the impression that in order to concatenate an array it had to be an array to start with.

[Zwired1]

works for me...

Never mind....After seeing BowenM's response, I looked closer and see you changed the tunnel type to concatenating.  Bowen is correct, you would normally use this to add a 1D (or more? I haven't tried) array to the end of the auto indexing instead of adding a dimension (make it a 2D array).  It makes no sense to do this with a non array data type.

[natasftw]

If you change your tunnel mode to "Concatenating" it breaks just as his did.  It gives the error "You have connected two arrays that mismatch."

Although, the real question I think is why would you want to concatenate the arrays instead of auto-index?

[BowenM]

Am I missing something here?  He isn't trying to concatenate an array - he is trying to concatenate a scaler.  What is the difference between what he posted and this?  

They don't work for the same reason.

[Zwired1]

Everybody's saying the same thing (after I looked closer at the original post).  Concatenating a scalar is not logical. 

[GregFreeman]

Kudos for everyone! Total brainfart. I have nested for loops. I need indexing on the inner, then concatenating on the outter...

I swear I've programmed in LabVIEW before.

[crossrulz]

See, even the best of us need help...

[JÞB]

---

@crossrulz wrote:

See, even the best of us need help...

---

Greg,  I stand by my comment it the Congrats thead-  I Love reading your threads  "What did Greg get himself into now?"  Is often amazing!

BUT, you bring up a good point!  Why shouldn't Concatanate Tunnels operate on scalars? the implementation of course being "Auto-indexing:D"    Or why can't "To more generic" operate on arrays?  You've got some work to do on the IE my friend!

Of COURSE, ITOH, You could just stick a Build Array in the loop and concate your heart out 

Spoiler

Hmmm.. I wonder if anyone has ever benchmarked the two methods????????? on a smart compiler-  The output array length is known and the whole darned loop could be folded with a constant in

[Darin.K]

Treating scalar concatenation like indexing is probably the most intuitive, but I would argue that the most consistent treatment would be to treat it as 'last value'.  Indexing raises the dimensionality, concatenation keeps it the same so I would say scalar in gives scalar out.

There is one exception, and that is this one which baffles me:

I am tired of tossing U8 conversions or a concatenate strings function in there.  Strings are definitely the one scalar data type where there is no confusion about what 'concatenate' means....