LabVIEW
NUMBER TO STRING, STRING TO NUMBER
@crossrulz wrote:
@JensG69 wrote:
wiebe@CARYAFormat Into String is usually the end point, as it's much more flexible. But not always. I'd slightly prefer Number to Hex String over Format Into String, if it fits the job.But it (ie Number to Hex string) does not do the job - in this case.
Correct. And the Number To Decimal String will fill the string width with spaces instead of 0s. So Format Into String, or even Format Value, inside of a FOR loop would be the way to handle arrays to get what the OP is asking for.
Or Array To Spreadsheet String? Haven't actually open OP's VIs (EDIT:in LV2013 at the momentas there isn't any), but sounds like a fit.
I think we're mostly creating our own party here. Is OP still there?
Search LabVIEW like a graph! 
IM TRYING TO GENERATE SERIES OF EXCEL FILE(.xls) ACCORDING TO HOW MANY I WANT. (SERIES FILENAME.)
THAT ENCIRLCE IMAGE IN THE PICTURE IS THE SUFFIX OF THE FILENAME.
I NEED 3 CHARACTER LIKE; 001,002.....010,011...100,101 AND SO ON
EXAMPLE:
I NEED TO GENERATE 69 PIECES OF EXCEL FILE(.xls),THE FIRST 5 CHARACTER IS "XXXXX" THE FILENAME SHOULD APPEAR LIKE THIS XXXXX001,XXXXX002 UP TO XXXXX069
THANKS FOR YOUR ANSWERS BTW.
@பூபதிராஜா wrote:
Try this VI, i have attached below
Here's a much simpler way.
Of course there is also this function.
Some glaring problems with your code:
- Terminals belong outside the loop, because their data should remain constant during the duration of the loops (if they would change in the middle of execution, the output is unpredictable. They should be read exactly once, and not over and over. This is also a performance issue.
- Your code will run forever and your computer will run out of memory if the number of digits entered is zero or negative. If the "number of files" value contains more digits than would fit into the suffix, the VI also cannot terminate because "equal" never happens. Any reasonable programmer would use a "greater or equal" instead of the "equal" here.
- ...
@altenbachAny reasonable programmer would use a "greater or equal" instead of the "equal" here.
Absolutely true. But only if a For Loop is not possible. As implied in your example, but just to emphasize that.
I'd always prefer a For loops over a While Loop. It's usually much clearer to see when they will run infinitely (never), and will cause problems in less situations, but a While Loop will have the same problem in those situations (for instance when wiring a double +inf to 'N').
Since we have the conditional stop terminal, the only reason to use a while loop is when it actually has to run infinitely, or when the number of iterations is determined in the while loop. In all other situations, use a For Loop. Basically, the For Loop is a While Loop with an implemented maximum nr. of iterations, and therefor much less error prone.
