destroyStack, was: Stack Switching Question

[simplsol at aol.com]

Jeanne,
 It got 5 of my votes as well.
 But I think there is more confusion here.
 A
  I believe Open Stack and Close Stack should be symmetrical. In other 
words, Close Stack should reverse the results of Open Stack. Open Stack 
1. loads the stack into memory, 2. makes the stack visible on the 
screen, and 3. locks other users out of the stack. Close Stack should 
(in opposite order) 1. release the stack to the next user, 2. remove 
the stack image from the screen, and 3. purge the stack from memory. 
Close Stack should always purge, there should be no "destroyStack" or 
"purgeOnClose" option. This would be logical, elegant, consistent, 
predictable, simpler, and visible (you would not end up with hidden 
stacks in memory that you didn't know were there).
 B
  In addition to a Purge, or Purge Main Stack command, I'd like to see a 
Load Stack command - symmetrical with purge. "Load" is short, describes 
the operation, and is already used by Transcript for URLs. Load Stack 
would place a copy of a stack in memory (without opening it), Purge 
Main Stack would remove it.
 C
  I believe stacks should only be put into memory by opening or loading 
- not by referencing. This would be logical, elegant, consistent, 
predictable, simpler, and visible. There is not (and should not be) a 
Dereference command! By being forced to load stacks before working on 
them we will always be reminded to purge them and we will not have 
stacks in memory which we put there unaware.
 Let's bury "destroyStack" permanently.
 Paul Looney

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com>
 To: How to use Revolution <use-revolution at lists.runrev.com>
 Sent: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:54:10 -0700
 Subject: Re: Stack Switching Question

 Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote: 
 > At 12:25 AM -0400 10/6/2005, simplsol at aol.com wrote: 
 >> By "destroyStack" don't we always mean "purge stack"? 
  > > The delete stack command, when used on a main stack, purges the 
stack > from memory. However, when used on a substack, it deletes that 
substack > from the stack file. The next time the stack file is saved, 
bye-bye > substack. 
  > > It is... (deep breath)... perhaps not the most well-thought-out 
feature > of the language. There is a bugzilla request > 
<http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=1081> to split > 
the two functions of the delete stack command. 
  
 Good job -- got my vote. Thanks. 
  
  > (This is separate from the destroyStack property, which does always 
 > indicate whether the stack should be purged. Ironic that the more > 
alarming name is attached to the less dangerous feature...) 
  
  Maybe we should change the syntax "go next card" to "erase hard drive" 
for consistency in irrelevant ominousness ;) 
  
 -- 
  Richard Gaskin 
  Managing Editor, revJournal 
  _______________________________________________________ 
  Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com 
 _______________________________________________ 
 use-revolution mailing list 
 use-revolution at lists.runrev.com 
  Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences: 
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution