Re: [Re: [AD] New WIP]

[Laurence Withers <lwithers@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In reply to Peter Puck (Peter Puck <zaqhaq@xxxxxxxxxx>):
>> So, in this case, I would say that we should not declare the lock/unlock
>> functions as taking a const bitmap parameter.
>> 
>OK, it is broken and can not be fixed in a good way. I think that the 
>alternatives are : 
>
>       1. remove all the AL_CONST that is affected this would mean 
>editing a lot of
>files in many places.
>       2. complete the windows code and do some typecasting.
>       3. give the AL_CONST a blank definition in the windows version.
>
>None of the alternatives is enjoyable and all have something destructive 
>but the worst alternative is to do nothing. I think the first one should 
>be avoided and would go for the third alternative.

We need some clarification here, before we make any changes. As I code
for DJGPP, I do not use the bitmap acquisition/release functions, so I
have no experience of using them. Is it necessary to acquire a bitmap to
read from it, or only to write to it?

If we only acquire a bitmap for the purpose of writing to it, then we
can happily remove the `AL_CONST' keyword, since all the functions which
write to the bitmap get their pointer in the type BITMAP*, not const
BITMAP*.

However, if we need to acquire bitmaps in order to read from them, then
we must have the `AL_CONST' keyword, and supply relevant casts in the
acquire/release functions.

Bye for now,
-- 
Laurence Withers, lwithers@xxxxxxxxxx
                http://www.lwithers.demon.co.uk/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature