Re: [AD] to prefix or not to prefix (sigh)

[Bob <ohannessian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Sven Sandberg wrote:

[snip]

> This is IMHO the best proposal so far, except: why do we need this
> two-step thing (first prefix, then add more API-breaking stuff)?


I agree with the idea of the proposal , however, I don't agree with the 
version numbering. Major version numbers should be reserved for major 
changes (ex: 3.0 vs 4.0), and not for a slight rename of the API.

I would rahter see it this way:
 - 3.9.xx (3.5?) Current WIP (WIP40) + bug fixes
 - 4.0           Prefixed API
 - 5.0           Completely new API, with 8 it palettes, combined BITMAP,
                 RLE_SRPITE, possible merge of AllegroGL, more object
                 oriented, and so on.


3.9.x can be released at the same time as 4.0, in december, where 5.0 can be 
released a few years later.

The 5.0 vs 5.2 is just bad IMO. If you're going to do major changes in the 
way the API works, then you might as well move up to the next version number 
- 6.0.

I also don't like that fact that at the rate things are heading, we'll be 
pulling an NVidia, whose drivers are at version 22.x now.

[snip]

> > This may or may not become 'Grozilla.}
>
> Sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly is 'Grozilla?


'Grozilla was a proposal to combine Allegro with some add-ons (JGMOD, 
Allegromp3, and a few others).


>  - Get rid of (some) global variables and states. E.g. `text_mode()'
> could be an argument to `textout()' rather than a global variable. (I've
> never understood why background and foreground color should be treated

> differently in the API.) I don't know if it is worth the effort though.


Backwards compatibility with Allegro 2.0.



--
- Robert J Ohannessian
"Microsoft code is probably O(n^20)" (my CS prof)
http://pages.infinit.net/voidstar/