Revert Woes - Spoke too soon

[David Burgun]

Hi All,

I spoke too soon. I tested the revert command in a test project, 
which had one main stack and one sub stack (the modal), in my real 
app, I have:

MainStack (Dummy, the window is hidden).
Sub-Stack Top Level Windows - Modeless, usually called up from Menu 
or Tool Palette.
Sub-Stack Utilitity Level Modal Dialogs, called from button handlers 
in Top Level Sub-Stacks.

If I issue a "revert" from the Utility level, it reverts back to the 
main stack, e.g. it reverts the Top Level Window too!

So, is there no way to just have the revert on the current stack, not 
the whole of the sub-stacks?

Thanks a lot
Dave


!!!!!!!!!!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

_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution