On 30 Oct 2006, at 20:23, Richard Gaskin wrote:
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?
I think the current behavior can be seen as useful, although I agree
it might seem odd in some ways.
Say I want to do this:
set the cProp of stack "C:/myStack.rev"
save stack "C:/myStack.rev"
If the stack is automatically purged after setting the prop, will the
change be saved? By current logic, presumably not. And what will get
saved in the second statement?
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?
You've only been asking for that for 8 years, Richard. Have patience!
But yes, I think it would be good. However, I imagine it's not just a
case of creating a synonym for "delete", as the behavior when applied
to substacks would be different.
Cheers
Dave
_______________________________________________
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
