+0200
Subject: Re: destroyStack, was: Stack Switching Question
On 10/6/05 3:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeanne,
It got 5 of my votes as well.
But I think there is more confusion here.
Paul, I think the open/close and load/purge ideas are great, with a
few
minor
Jeanne,
It got 5 of my votes as well.
But I think there is more confusion here.
A
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
Jeanne,
It got 5 of my votes as well.
But I think there is more confusion here.
A
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
Robert Brenstein wrote:
Jeanne,
It got 5 of my votes as well.
But I think there is more confusion here.
A
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
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 memory
We still need to be able to do the former. Hide stack
to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Sent: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 07:17:58 -0700
Subject: Re: destroyStack, was: Stack Switching Question
Robert Brenstein wrote:
Jeanne,
It got 5 of my votes as well.
But I think there is more confusion here.
A
I believe Open Stack and Close Stack
On 10/6/05 3:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeanne,
It got 5 of my votes as well.
But I think there is more confusion here.
Paul, I think the open/close and load/purge ideas are great, with a few
minor changes (plus I've included other terms in use to get an overview of
Robert Brenstein wrote:
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
memory
We still need to be able
On 10/6/05 3:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeanne,
It got 5 of my votes as well.
But I think there is more confusion here.
Paul, I think the open/close and load/purge ideas are great, with a few
minor changes (plus I've included other terms in use to get an overview
