Re: [AD] CPU info changes

[Bob <ohannessian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Henrik Stokseth wrote:

[snip]

> i like this idea a lot. if you look at it from a purely objective point of 
> view, it is more convenient to use than the string solution. in fact more of 
> allegro should use the config system to store key-data pairs. re-use of code 
> is always a good thing. BTW, i don't think using the config system is *that* 
> unrelated, after all it exists for the purpose of storing and retreiving 
> information easily.


I'm thinking it from a user's perspective, and it just seem out of place. I 
can't imaging the allegro docs having a get_config_string() entry that is a 
couple of pages long so we can explain all the stuff that can extracted out 
of it. This is especially true when that information is relevent to other 
sections of the docs. For example, you'd look in the sound section to see if 
there's a way to get the max frequency the sound card can produce, instead 
of browsing around until you fall by luck on get_confg_string and see the 
#sound_freq entry! :)

If we are going to do something like this, then I'd rather have a full new 
API entry point (val = allegro_get_system_info("param")?). We could then add 
desktop_color and everything to it. This will break old WIP programs though, 
but will remove a lot of clutter from the DLL, and can be extended for 
future use without breaking the ABI.

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