Thank you all for the verification.
Contrary to many people's notions (including mine), it seems that merely
reading a property of a stack will cause it to remain in memory -- even
when that stack has its destroyStack set to false.
I had been working under the presumption that when a property is read
from a stack that hasn't been opened, the engine merely reads the stack,
extracts the property contents, disposes of the stack and returns the
property contents to me.
Apparently that isn't how it works, even when a stack's destroyStack is
true.
So while we have a workaround using this odd application of the "delete
stack" command which doesn't actually delete the stack but merely purges
it, I'm wondering if we should consider this behavior a bug, as least as
far as stack with their destroyStack set to true are concerned?
Also, would it be worth pursuing a request for a "purge stack" command
so newcomers don't get the impression that "delete stack" will actually
delete their stack?
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Media Corporation
___________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
