Trevor DeVore wrote:
On Oct 31, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
The destroyStack property is used to govern whether a stack remains in
memory when using "go" or "open", but it not honored when a property
within a stack is accessed.
By honoring the destroyStack property consistently, accessing
properties of stacks which have this set to true would cause the
engine to read the file, obtain the data, dispose of the copy of the
stack in memory, and return the value requested.
I guess in my mind the current behavior makes sense. I see a read of a
property as something that reads a property, bringing it into memory if
need be to complete the operation. You approach it as the reading of
the property being an open/read/close operation so destroyStack should
come into play. Is that correct?
I have to admit I'm with you here, Trevor. The current behavior has
never bothered me, and like Jerry, I use it to implement some things in
my apps. It seems trivial to add a single line that closes the stack,
which is what I do.
In my situation, the stacks I am accessing are very large. There would
be a delay if they had to be constantly opened and closed. I could live
with it if I had to set the destroystack to false, but it is convenient
to have them go away completely when I do open them visibly for editing.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.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
