Val Brown

Right, so now we have to mindful of how we code the UI and cap the UWI..... Way to go Fab....

FWIW, I agree with all of what you're saying here. The idea of allowing for "advanced users to be flexible" is fine, but then, those same advanced users can be as flexible as they like -- with code THEY develop.

Vea lo fácil que era!

Fab, You could just bribe yours with a Jalapena Margarita at zTajas....

I'd like to hear more about that, if not here, then in another thread.

Can you save this for 2011?

OK, thanks. I'll give that a try.

I'm not able to capture this as Double Click. Instead I register a single Left Click, no matter how quickly the double click is done. Does anyone have a working example of this actually working?

No, nothing REQUIRES byref implementations, however, for various reasons (including what appears most "natural and simple" to an individual) the DVR implementations may be preferred. You might want to look at for one of the threads discussing this issue. It depends, in the end, on what you mean but I've always been struck by how much the legacy of a primacy effect impacts these kinds of discussions. For instance, if you learned C++ first, you most likely learned of "singleton" in terms of byref implementations. If, however, you learned C first (esp if you were involved in the earliest standardization efforts of C), you probably didn't learn of it in that way as "classes" per se didn't yet exist. Instead all of the various semaphore "tricks" or, if you prefer "workarounds", became familiar to you and you might even continue to PREFER to have the increased flexibility of NOT being restricted by the now-classic implementation of "singleton" in C++. As you can guess, my history extends beyond the early days of C (in fact all the way to PL/1, FORTRAN, etc) and so I prefer the more purely "dataflow" implementations using SEQ+FGV instead of DVRs. But unless you demand the strictest definition of "singleton" (a la the C++ construct), it is clear that nothing does require byref.

You're basically remaking my point. "Most of the patterns..." are programmed in C++ by those who use and "grew up" using/learning programming constructs via C++ and/or UML oriented to byref constructs. And what is "more natural and straight forward" depends on the eyes of the beholder. Having used LV as long as I have, FGV seem VERY natural and straight forward to me.

This is exactly correct. Nothing absolutely requires references it's just that some come from the perspective of C++ as THE gold standard for how OOP is to be implemented and, since C++ is generally taught musing byref constructs, it's implicit that such an implementation is "better" or "fundamentally different" in some preferable manner -- generally in terms of "ease", "readability" or some similar criteria in the mind of the person making that judgement. Like almost all language related discussions, it reflects much more the biases and history of those involved in the discussion rather than any structural realities OF the language. Parisians cringe at Quebecois and vice versa and both wag their heads at Cajun Creole. Of course you could say that I have a bias. After all, all of my programming is byval.....

Don't forget though that the actual complete OSDetailedName is likely to be the far longer than just "Windows 7".....

Rolf, Thanks so much for your comments here. You're reflecting what my sense is of the situation. Anyone have a different perspective? val

I'd like to ask a related question but, if it seems like that is hijacking this thread, I'll move it somewhere else. I'm looking into including mpc-hc.exe as part of a distribution. It would be the version already "out there" under LGPL (as I understand it) and I would not be using ANY of the source code to it (let alone modifying it) but would instead simply call npc-hc.exe and dispatch text commands to it to implement a few key functions that MS, in it's infinite wisdom, have closed off in WMP in Windows 8. What is the understanding that others have about what notices are required to do this and does doing this open me up to the possibility of having to post my source code (which I will never do).

Perfect. Thanks.

Anyone know the string returned to OSName when the OS is Windows 8? I don't have a test system with W8 on it so can't verify it myself yet.

I remember Ritchie, Thompson, Plougher and Kernighan all talking about the merits of obscurity when trying to protect IP. It's an important lesson to bear in mind when considering how "easy" you want to your code for those who might follow... Of course, we all DID know that Ritchie and Thompson left open some back doors, even though they denied it for many, many years.

I've used the KeySpan 19HS but don't have a URL ready to hand about it. And I agree with Neville D that the TFDI chipset adapters seem to have been the most reliable, if memory serves. I seem to remember that there was a large in how VISA errors were handled in shifting from 6 to 7, and then again in the shift to 8.x.. Somewhere along the way the "Legacy I/O" VIs went bye bye, but they still did function through, I believe the last version before the release of 2009. I thought I'd given up serial communications back in the early 80s after implementing a Unix look a like for 4 work stations networked to an old 8086. Oh well.....

Well I'm VERY sad to say that things have changed and I will NOT at the BBQ because I will not be at NI-Week. SO everybody have a great time....drink lots of :beer_mug: :beer_mug:

Wow, really nice web and iPhone apps. Scheduling Sessions was actually fun and easy and that's a first!

What were the other work arounds?

Yes that's the link to the calendar itself but there is not yet a posted access to setting up your own schedule.

I just spoke to NI yesterday about this and it's not up yet.

So how many CLAs and such do we have working on this?????