REALLY close stack

[Troy Rollins]

On Jun 16, 2004, at 5:04 AM, Dave Cragg wrote:

> I remember a problem somewhat similar from way back (in a previous 
> engine). I concluded (but can't confirm) that the problem occurred 
> because the removal of the stack from memory took place after the 
> handler finished running. So deleting stacks in a repeat loop may not 
> produce the desired effect. The solution was to use "send ... in 
> <time>" . Perhaps something like this (untested):

Thanks Dave, and yes, I too considered the possibility that a "close 
and purge" did not happen until after the handler was complete, so 
therefore doing it in a loop would be problematic. Also, a single 
handler which first closes a stack, then re-opens one with the same 
stack name would be similarly afflicted.

Yet, "delete" seems to be fine with it. Both in loops, as well as a 
linear handler. So something there is very different.

I still say there should be a "kill stack."

--
Troy
RPSystems, Ltd.
http://www.rpsystems.net