Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!reed!niski
From: niski@reed.bitnet (Joe Niski,(ext.525))
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard
Subject: Re: Current Card of Another Stack?
Summary: push & pop vs. global variables
Keywords: push, pop, multiple open stacks
Message-ID: <16190@reed.UUCP>
Date: 5 Mar 91 19:15:29 GMT
References: <6448@rex.cs.tulane.edu> <90657@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@reed.UUCP
Reply-To: niski@reed.bitnet (Joe Niski)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
Lines: 32

>>I am on stack A. I want to go to stack B (to get something) and back to 
>>stack A without changing the current card of stack B. Now if I could say
>>
>>    go to current card of stack B
>>
>>I would be OK. Of course, saying
>>
>>    go to stack B
>>
>>just goes to the first card of the stack. I would prefer not to have to modify
>>the stack to have it keep track of the current card. Any ideas?
>>
>One idea would be to store the Id's of the cards in HyperTalk globals.
>...
>Another way might be the use of push and pop card, but I think that could
>get messy.

I dunno, using push & pop doesn't seem any messier:
script in stack B:

	on suspendStack
	   push card
	end suspendStack

from stack A, "pop card" will take you back to stack B, leaving A open on 
the screen.  To me, it seems a bit more elegant than declaring global variables 
that don't get used much.  Just an opinion...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Niski						niski@reed.edu
Mac Support Coordinator					niski@reed.bitnet
Reed College, Portland, OR 97202			503-777-7525