LabVIEW
Simplest method in finding a Numeric Palindrome
Solved!
Understood.
Just pointing out that "what was written" != "what was meant"
Being my usual pedantic annoying self. 
@Intaris wrote:
Understood.
Just pointing out that "what was written" != "what was meant"
Being my usual pedantic annoying self.
If anyone is new to the forum please be aware that I participate here under a contract where;
I will do my best to write what I mean and YOU are expected to do your best to read what I meant and not what wrote. 
I could of course redirect the focus from my typo and use it to show that any solution that is subject to a mistake by a user, is not trustworthy.
Ben
@Ben wrote:
@Intaris wrote:
Understood.
Just pointing out that "what was written" != "what was meant"
Being my usual pedantic annoying self.
If anyone is new to the forum please be aware that I participate here under a contract where;
I will do my best to write what I mean and YOU are expected to do your best to read what I meant and not what wrote.
I could of course redirect the focus from my typo and use it to show that any solution that is subject to a mistake by a user, is not trustworthy.
Ben
And as someone who has been listening to Ben for many years I can state with uncharacteristically large certainty that understanding what Ben MEANS is very much a worthwhile endeavour.
On the other hand, a lot of my nit-picking can be freely ignored. I reckon approximately 30% of all of my posts fall into this category and can be ignored with no loss of real information. I need to vent somewhere. I read a newspaper report today that people are most content when they can freely express their emotions. It matters not whether the emotions themselves are positive or negative, just being able to express inproves people's satisfaction. So in a nutshell, thank you dear Forum readers for giving me the platform to indulge in a rather greedy venting on my part. It's all for a good cause... 
Now if anyone wants to hazard a guess as to which percentage of the remaining 70% of my posts can be disregarded, feel free. 
@Ben wrote:
If anyone is new to the forum please be aware that I participate here under a contract where;
I will do my best to write what I mean and YOU are expected to do your best to read what I meant and not what wrote.
I could of course redirect the focus from my typo and use it to show that any solution that is subject to a mistake by a user, is not trustworthy.
Ben
OK Now I have to make two points to vent (Sorry if i'm encroaching on your territory Shane)
Firstly, Ben really is like that. Once you read a good percentage of his posts (that can take a while but is worth the effort) it gets easier to understand what he meant to write. e.g. CAUTION: when you start typing in "Beneese" yourself , you have gone too far.
Second. RE:tThat solution Ben is referring to. Hey, simple code defined by number of functions was the only requirement! There was no specified accuracy, repeatability, or throughput. Don't go introducing "scope creep" just because you can't beat that code.
