Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!udel!haven!umbc3!gmuvax2!peraino
From: peraino@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Bob Peraino)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
Subject: Code etiquette
Keywords: hp48
Message-ID: <3333@gmuvax2.gmu.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 91 20:11:58 GMT
Organization: George Mason Univ., Fairfax, Va.
Lines: 27


>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