Stack Switching Question

[Richard Gaskin]

Chipp Walters wrote:
 > simplsol at aol.com wrote:
 >> I gave it five votes as well - with the understanding that
 >> there would be one comprehensive solution that would address
 >> both bugs. It would be welcome news to learn that "destroyStack"
 >> had disappeared with the next version of Rev.
 >
 > I, for one, hope it doesn't dissapear, as I use 'delete stack' quite
 > often. It's the only sure-fire way to make sure a stack is closed, and
 > I'd have to rewrite many, many stacks if it went away.
 >
 > It's unfortunately named, and could certainly use a better synonym.

That's all the request asks for, to depricate "destroyStack" in favor of 
a more accurately descriptive term:
<http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=1072>

I think we all enjoy having control over whether a stack remains in 
memory or not.  Unfortunately "delete stack" doesn't do that 
consistently, and in some cases can actually delete a stack.

That's a separate issue, addressed here:
<http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=1081>

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