Dave Cragg wrote:
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?
Consider your subsequent post:
I just remembered something (third time this week, must be the
new pills). Aren't "unused" stacks purged from memory by the engine
when it needs to reclaim memory? I think I'm referring to stacks
without the destryStack set, but which have been closed. I seem to
recall reading this somewhere, either in the old Metacard docs, or
the MC mailing list from long ago. If it's true, I wonder if it
applies to "unopened" stacks in memory too.
This implies the engine introduces a "sometimes" rule ("sometime it does
one thing, sometimes something else"), which is generally bad news.
So to answer your question, I would suggest that saving might be limited
to stacks which have been opened with the "open" or "go" command,
provided the stack has its destroyStack set to true.
If a stack has its destroyStack set to false, the current behavior seems
somewhat acceptable (once the "sometimes" part is resolved).
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.
Actually, my original request was for a related change, depricating the
destroyStack property in favor of something less alarming:
<http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=1072>
This request is for a command, which I've just added to BZ:
<http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=3932>
--
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
