peraino@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Bob Peraino) (02/01/91)
>Whoever complained about not >being able to comprehend how it would be possible to not know the stack >depth merely needs to imagine this scenario: >. >. >. >If the >user breaks out of the code A better way to word it may be, " how it would be possible that the PROGRAM doesn't know what's on the stack". Of course, ATTN is a bit of an exception. If you cancel a running program, that "image" as I like to call it, or program, IS NO MORE. It doesn't know ANYTHING any more. I mean, It doesn't matter how clean your code is, if the user presses ON-C, or ON-A-F. The stack definitely isn't going to be there anymore. The fact is, the stack is a volatile area. Although I believe that code should leave the stack as it was (except for returned results), I also believe as a user that the stack should not be used to store anything, because of the potential for things to go away; the exception being intermediate results calculations. NOTHING is going to guarantee the stack from any possibility. But if BOTH of the above philosophies are followed, I find you are safe. >sburke@jarthur.clarke.edu peraino@gmuvax.gmu.edu