==> dB: Ask around and you will find that there are multiple ways of coding a valid solution. You will also run into designers who express the opinion that to not do it their way constitutes at least poor if not "extremely poor" programming . The more extreme the response, the more questionable the advice.
=> Ausman: Aren't you doing just that?
No, I am not. I said that there are multiple valid solutions to a problem. At this point I made no comment about anyone's specific code.
==> dB: Your rung 9 example above will work just fine but looks wonky. I blame that on the software. A rung should have only a single connection to the left-hand rail, and the software should not allow more that. For that matter, it should allow only a single connection to the right-hand rail.
I said C_R_PLC's code is a valid, if unorthodox, solution.
I expressed my opinion that his style is not good practice and indeed should not be allowed by the software.
I agreed with Flex727's solution to rewrite the rung using a single connection point with the LH rail.
==> dB: Regarding the need for SB 1 on rung 26 in Flex727's example above, I would say that is is unnecessary. If it turns out that without it the resulting logic does not perform as intended, that is a serious flaw in the software suite and if not addressed by Unitronics would cause me to look elsewhere for my PLC solutions. I am confident that that is not necessary.
=> Ausman: So on one hand you are saying there should only be a single connection to the LH rail allowed by the software, yet when Flex does this the most practical way you complain about it???? And you also say rung 9 will work just fine, going against your advice? Flex sugggested separating the rungs out but also offered alternatives.
=> Ausman: Discussion is welcomed on the forum, but nitpicking using conflicting statements within a post is not very helpful to anyone.
Your welcome is appreciated, but realize that meaningful discussion necessarily involves diverse opinions.
I wasn't nitpicking anything. I said contact SB 1 was unnecessary; I did not say it was wrong. This is called discussion.
I suggested a different, IMO better, way to code rung 9. How is it going against my advice to acknowledge that the original method would work? I am not afraid to say that someone else's style would work.
Yes, Flex offered an alternative solution., and I commented on it. More discussion.
As explained above, there is no conflict in my original post.
By the way, I checked with seven different PLC programming suites I have used in the past, Unitronics being the latest one. Three of them would allow a rung to make multiple connections to the left or right rail. Four of them would allow only a single contact point. I guess you know my preference. ?