I am always reluctant to upgrade and usually only end up doing so when it is
forced on me. In my experience "upgrade" is synonymous with "new bugs and
surprises that are going to require time and effort to fix". I'd rather work
with features/bugs that I know about than mess with new ones...

I still run Windows 2000 on most of my PC's and haven't yet upgraded from
LV6.1. When I do upgrade software such as LabVIEW I like to wait until
version x.1 comes out, as I make the assumption that the major new
features/bugs in version x.0 have stabilized by that time.  :) 

In all fairness though, NI seems pretty good at allowing you to keep
multiple LabVIEW versions on your PC. Just be careful to keep original
copies of the code in a safe place before doing a mass compile.  

I have a colleague who remembers punch cards. He still insists on FORTRAN
and Windows 98... 

Johann Junginger. 
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Serlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 10:59
To: Paul F. Sullivan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: State machine diagram editor


Paul,

Can you elaborate further on where the OpenG toolkit can be found with
the "Set Enum String Value" VI?  Is it part of the professional
development suite?  LV7.0 or LV6.1 or both?  I have 7.0 but have not
upgraded from LV6.1 yet because I do not like to redo code that is
already working.  On that note and this will most likely spawn another
thread here, how does everyone deal with upgrades on the SSP?  Does
everyone just upgrade and fix all issues that come about from the
upgrade or do people do what I'm doing and hang back for a while until
the time is right to make the upgrade.  I usually end up leap-frogging
my versions.  I take big jumps rather than little steps.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Paul F. Sullivan
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 6:11 AM
To: Mark Smith
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: State machine diagram editor


Mark,

You wrote:

>... I use string driven
>state machines instead of enum type defs when I want to create a
scriptable
>state machine.  That is, the state sequence is driven by a text file
that
>has information about what order the states are executed.  This means
the
>test sequence can be modified in the field using any text editor...

The OpenG toolkit has a "Set Enum String Value" VI that would allow a 
text script to run an enum-based sate machine. I didn't know about 
the OpenG VI when I first needed this capability so I built a "Set 
Enum with String" VI that works with control references. If you'd 
like that, just let me know.

-- 
        EnWirementally,
        Paul F. Sullivan

----------------------------------------------------

        SULLutions              (781)769-6869
        "when a single discipline is not enough"

        visit http://www.SULLutions.com

----------------------------------------------------


Reply via email to