| Re: [AD] official beta (Re namespace again) |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On October 29, 2001 09:08 pm, you wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2001, at 17:26, Chris La Mantia wrote:
> > So why add more things they have to fix? The bottom line is that the
> > "official" word is that "3.12 is the latest stable release". You know
> > and I know that the last dozen WIPs are more stable than 3.12. So why
> > should we keep it to ourselves?
>
> OK, I just was advocating one person's idea that DIDN'T break the API and
> now everyone is going off on API issues. I was suggesting a new allegro
> header file for the new API called allegro4.h that would be the new API,
> but allegro.h would be included for backwards compatability and would be
> declared as deprecated.
>
> This doesn't change what a user sees of Allegro! Adding the allegro4.h
> file would only ADD to not break the API.
>
> It would allow us to introduce the new API in the new major version number
> increment, so that the old API would be supported through Allegro 5.
>
> And it would allow users that have a problem with the non-prefixed version
> to solve their problems.
>
> Now I'm not doing anything that really needs the new API. But I know some
> people do and I know there are some issues on platforms. The only reason I
> advocate the change as I do is because it doesn't change anything for users
> not wanting to use the new API.
>
The way I see it, 'allegro.h' is just a layer ontop of 'allegro4.h' or
'allegro5.h'. so technically the API is broken and would have to do some
magic with macros to get the old API to look like it does now.
--
Thomas Fjellstrom
tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx
http://strangesoft.net