I know this is not a "nice" post, but I can not leave alone that some little bungling amateur who has no idea about reality decides it is provocative to state a fact. For others that may take offense, sorry


Sounds like a housekeeping nightmare.
Score: -1 (-1 Provacative/Troll)

I could'nt care less about the "rating" but for the edification of the ..... that rated the post and others that might take notice od the totally misapplied rating, here we go.

it IS a housekeeping nightmare

I went through the "housekeeping nightmare" and speak from experience and then some little bungling amateur decides it is provocative to state a fact, I even used the phrase "sounds like" instead of "it IS" which I now use to remoive any uncertainty.

I once - many more moons ago than I care to remember - worked with a minicomputer, the Lockheed SUE, which did not have push and pop instructions.
In order to make that bugger work without each and every subroutine have its own stack and eating up all the memory, I had, for housekeeping reasons, to rename each and every subroutine to have a number at the end of the name so that subroutines that did not call any routines was xxx0, those that called only level 0 was xxx1 and so on. That way, all level 0 could share a "stack" (20 bytes of memory), all level 1 ....
Then when, for some reason a level 0 routine was changed to call a routine which then became level 0 the level 0 routine that called the new routine had to be renamed level 1 and all level 1 that called the former level 0 which now is level 1 had to be renamed level 2 and so on, and, of course, every name change had to be accompanied by a change of which stack was used......
Such an operation could take a day and, if there was a glitch usually an intermittent bug resulted.

If that is not a housekeeping nightmare, what is.

Erik