When closed, does a substack whose destroyStack is true remains in memory ?

Ken Ray kray at sonsothunder.com
Thu Mar 23 12:15:37 EST 2006


On 3/23/06 7:03 AM, "Richard Gaskin" <ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote:

> Ken Ray wrote:
>> Well, as I mentioned above, closed substacks are still in memory if the
>> mainstack is, so you could check for the mainstack in "the windows" or in
>> "the stacks" to see if it is in memory.
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> The windows function is documented only to return a list of open stacks.
>   The stacks function would seem to be the better one for testing if
> closed stacks are in memory, but it appears to behave anomalously and
> may not be reliable at this time.
> 
> Try this:
> 
> 1. Make a new mainstack named "AAA"; save it
> 2. Make a substack in that stack file named "BBB"; save it
> 3. Get "the stacks"
> RESULT: two entries for the filename to "AAA" are in the list,
> as we would expect.
> 
> 4. Set the destroyStack of "AAA" to true
> 5. Close "AAA"
> 6. Get "the stacks"
> RESULT: the filename of "AAA" is in the list once, since BBB is still
> open; so far so good

Wow... really? I would have thought that BBB would close to since its
mainstack closed. But whaddya know! :-)

> What am I missing?  In my head this doesn't add up.

What does "the mainstacks" say? I've found that this seems to truly show
what's in memory (or at least, the mainstacks that are in memory)...


Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software
Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
Email: kray at sonsothunder.com




More information about the Use-livecode mailing list