Re: IsAstack ( )
On 02/07/07, Brian Yennie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reading from a file should be perfectly safe even if it is in use - writing is the dangerous one. True - but I see no advantage over using the built in exists() function and removing the stack from memory afterwards - it is not subject to file format changes, detects if a stack is corrupt and I doubt is any slower? ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: IsAstack ( )
On 02/07/07, Brian Yennie mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reading from a file should be perfectly safe even if it is in use - writing is the dangerous one. True - but I see no advantage over using the built in exists() function and removing the stack from memory afterwards - it is not subject to file format changes, detects if a stack is corrupt and I doubt is any slower? Unless it is a really big stack and/or has lots of substacks. ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: IsAstack ( )
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 12:45:04 +0100, David Bovill wrote: On 02/07/07, Brian Yennie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reading from a file should be perfectly safe even if it is in use - writing is the dangerous one. True - but I see no advantage over using the built in exists() function and removing the stack from memory afterwards - it is not subject to file format changes, detects if a stack is corrupt and I doubt is any slower? Just curious - does it not cause the problem Hugh first identified? That is, if you already have a stack that's open called MyStack and you use exists() on another stack file on disk whose mainstack is also called MyStack, does it not cause problems with the shared stack name space? Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software, Inc. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
