destroyStack, was: Stack Switching Question

[Richard Gaskin]

Robert Brenstein wrote:
>> 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
> 
> 
> Sounds good to me, Paul, but you need to accommodate closing stack 
> window as opposed to closing stack. We have now:
> 
> close with destroyStack off = close stack window
> close with destroyStack on = close stack window, remove stack from memory
> 
> We still need to be able to do the former. Hide stack comes to mind as a 
> solution, of course, but making a stack as invisible is now subtly 
> different than closing it without removal from memory.

If I understand Paul's suggestion correctly, I believe that's covered 
under his request for a "load" command.

His thinking is not unlike something we all go through learning Rev:  in 
any other app closing a window ultimately purges the data presented in 
it from memory.

As much as I like (and often rely on) the current stay-resident behavior 
I wouldn't mind if it were optional, with the default being the more 
intuitive purge.

Of course backward compatibility is a whole other issue, so at best we 
might hope for some global flag to allow the old behavior to be 
sustained for legacy stacks without requiring an explicit "load".

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Managing Editor, revJournal
  _______________________________________________________
  Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com