Re: [AD] official beta (Re namespace again) |
[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives ]
Vincent Penquerc'h wrote:
And, for the record, I'm all for breaking everything. And, if possible, add a layer of defines for compatibility (eg allegro3.h). If something makes the lib better but breaks compatibility, then tough, but this should not stop it. We've seen what this causes.
I still completely agree. I think this could be the best solution. Like I said, we have already broken the API compatability with 3.12, the last official version. Let's take this chance to break it more. The idea of a allegro3.h for backwards compatability is completely awesome, and I think should be done.
One thing that might be better is if the old backwards header was <allegro.h> and the new header for the new API is <allegro4.h>. Either ways, now is the time to make API changes not later. The whole Allegro 5 thing is silly considering the small change we want to make (prefixing). We could also consider changes to the pallette or whatever for 4, but I think the other changes discussed would take too long to get out Allegro 4 in a resonable time. It's about time that we killed off that Allegro 3.12.
Gillius
Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ | http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/ |