# Alternative to SCALAR.INVALID

## Recommended Posts

Hi Seeq,

One of my calculations in Seeq requires me to use SCALAR.INVALID.toSignal() and a long chain of splice() formula. For example:

SCALAR.INVALID.toSignal()

.splice(22.32.toSignal(),\$a)

.splice(23.23.toSignal(),\$b)

.splice(24.54.toSignal(),\$c)

.splice(25.72.toSignal(),\$d)

.splice(26.02.toSignal(),\$e)

.splice(27.11.toSignal(),\$f)

.splice(28.54.toSignal(),\$g)

.splice(29.79.toSignal(),\$h)

.splice(30.95.toSignal(),\$i)

.splice(31.45.toSignal(),\$j)

.splice(32.72.toSignal(),\$k)

.splice(33.97.toSignal(),\$l)

.splice(34.76.toSignal(),\$m)

However, the calculation is not able to complete loading. Is there an alternative to replace SCALAR.INVALID? Any suggestions on how to improve this calculation?

##### Share on other sites

• Seeq Team

Jason,

A little bit more context on what you are trying to accomplish would help me offer a better suggestion. From what i can gather, you are trying to splice a bunch of different values together, one value for each condition \$a through \$m. When none of these values are present you want the signal to be without data (i.e. invalid) is that correct? do the conditions \$a through \$m ever overlap? Does the calculation go on endlessly giving you the spinning wheel? or does it error out in some way? If you only try splicing together say the first 4 conditions (\$a through \$d) will the calculation finish loading?

if a 0 value is OK when no other data is present, try replacing scalar.invalid with 0 and see if it works.

Using your formula and non-overlapping conditions i was able to get this long splice chain to work by commenting out, then retyping the offending lines of code (in my case, \$d and \$f both error-ed out for no clear reason. In retyping them they were accepted and the formula completed.)