More-Save Stack Woes - Could someone PLEASE explain this...

[David Burgun]

!!!!!!!!!!THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!!!!!!

I just don't know how I missed this command! I was actually trying to 
see how the IDE did it when you use the "Close and Remove from 
Memory" command - your email came thru just at the right time!

I just knew there was a "RunRev" oriented way of doing this! Now I 
have this in place, I can exploit the real Power Behind RunRev, I get 
more or less for free the ability to treat my data, GUI controls and 
code as one "unit". To a C/C++ programmer this is REAL POWER! Don't 
get me wrong you can do this in C/C++ BUT the amount of overhead in 
code and learning curve is huge! With RR it's already there! For 
Free! And it's Cross-Platform!!!!!

The "revert" command is the piece of the puzzle I was missing. In 
fact I should probably NOT do the

"save this stack" operation on the OK button? Since it will be saved 
when the main stack is saved, correct? The problem was I think, is 
that I was using positive logic, e.g. something gets saved if and 
only if you specifically save it (which is a "C" way of thinking) but 
actually the way that RunRev works is using (in my terms only, not a 
critisism, but rather a (good) feature), negative logic, e.g. it will 
be saved anyway, it's up to you to specially STOP it being saved! 
e.g. I was using the lack of a save command in the cancel handler to 
stop the data being updated, but of course it already had been 
updated and I needed to restore it! on cancel! Not, not save it!

On question though, if I place the revert command in a function that 
is located inside the main stack, will the revert command work on the 
main stack or the sub stack? I am going to try it anyway, but I'd 
like to know what is *supposed* to happen.

Thanks again!

All the Best
Dave

>Diving into this one late, but I think the "revert" command is what 
>you are looking for.
>
>HTH,
>Brian
>
>>I'll look at the stuff you suggested, but it seems like an awful 
>>lot of work compared to just reloading the sub-stack from disk if 
>>necessary. A simple command like "purgeStack" would surely do the 
>>trick?
>
>_______________________________________________
>use-revolution mailing list
>use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
>http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution