destroyStack, was: Stack Switching Question
simplsol at aol.com
simplsol at aol.com
Thu Oct 6 11:25:54 CDT 2005
I was also concerned about the legacy apps. My first thought was to
allow "load by reference" for some period of time (for example all
shipments of Rev. delivered after January 2007 would require the new
behavior). But it may be that only a very small group of current Rev
programmers are even aware of this feature. I'd like to hear from them
before finalizing any recommendations.
I also believe the "load stack" command would address Robert's
Can we kill "destroyStack" in my lifetime?
From: Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com>
To: How to use Revolution <use-revolution at lists.runrev.com>
Sent: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 07:17:58 -0700
Subject: Re: destroyStack, was: Stack Switching Question
Robert Brenstein wrote:
>> It got 5 of my votes as well.
>> But I think there is more confusion here.
>> 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
>> 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.
>> 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
> > 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".
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
More information about the use-livecode