revdev at pdslabs.net
Thu Jul 8 13:29:59 CDT 2010
Thanks guys. I know garbage collection is pretty reliable when
long-running code is structured to take advantage of timers ("send
<command> to <target> in <time>"), so I won't rely hasMemory() for it.
On 7/8/10 11:10 AM, Ben Rubinstein wrote:
> I fear that this sentence from the dictionary entry for hasMemory is
> This function is only partially implemented, and may not return
> useful values on some platforms. It is included in Revolution for
> compatibility with imported SuperCard projects.
> See also
> Poor memory handling is, for me, one of the biggest reasons not to use
> Rev for certain projects. If it doesn't bite you, you're fine, and
> one of the great benefits of Rev is not having to worry about memory;
> but if it does bite you, you're SOL. Also see also
> On 08/07/2010 18:55, william humphrey wrote:
>> I've been using a fairly complex system of stacks for years now in
>> RunRev and never heard of or felt a need for freeing up memory. It
>> seems to me it allocates a certain amount on start-up and stays that
>> way through out. Of course all my data is stored separately in an
>> external database (valentina).
>> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Phil Davis<revdev at pdslabs.net> wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>> Almost a year ago I posted the following with no response, and now
>>> the need
>>> to know has come up again:
>>>> In ancient times I used the hasMemory() function to force garbage
>>>> collection and free up memory. But maybe it only worked that way in
>>>> SuperCard... can anyone comment on its effectiveness in Revolution?
>>> Any takers?
>>> Phil Davis
>>> PDS Labs
>>> Professional Software Development
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
Professional Software Development
More information about the use-livecode