Chipp Walters wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I gave it five votes as well - with the understanding that
>> there would be one comprehensive solution that would address
>> both bugs. It would be welcome news to learn that "destroyStack"
>> had disappeared with the next version of Rev.
>
> I, for one, hope it doesn't dissapear, as I use 'delete stack' quite
> often. It's the only sure-fire way to make sure a stack is closed, and
> I'd have to rewrite many, many stacks if it went away.
>
> It's unfortunately named, and could certainly use a better synonym.
That's all the request asks for, to depricate "destroyStack" in favor of
a more accurately descriptive term:
<http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=1072>
I think we all enjoy having control over whether a stack remains in
memory or not. Unfortunately "delete stack" doesn't do that
consistently, and in some cases can actually delete a stack.
That's a separate issue, addressed here:
<http://support.runrev.com/bugdatabase/show_bug.cgi?id=1081>
--
Richard Gaskin
Managing Editor, revJournal
_______________________________________________________
Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
