Re: [AD] official beta (Re namespace again)

[Martijn Versteegh <m.versteegh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>> keeping in mind that we *must* precise *clearly* to all
>> users that 5->5.2 will maybe break some programs.
>
>Isn't it a bit stupid having 5.2 different from 5.0? Seems arbitrary, if
>you're going to change the lib and break compatibility, might as well rename
>it as it isn't Allegro any more. I prefer Owen's idea of the wrapper so old
>functions will call new ones. Go for backwards compatibility.
IMO it is best to do all api-changing from 4.0->5.0. Just Don't add any new functionality.
So we would prefix, swap src/dest in draw_sprite, unify the underscore usage, unify
the textout routines (which are ok the way they are to me, but I suppose it would
be more logical if textout and textprintf would have the same order of arguments)

We might consider to call the current set_color_function al_set_color6 to ease
addition of a 8 bit palette in 5.2, but I think we should do all api-breaking
stuff from 4.0 to 5.0, and then go on adding new stuff like we always did ;-).

For once I stringly disagree with Shawn Hargreaves (which hasn't happened much
in the history of allegro ;-). I think we should make a clear separation
between the old unprefixed api and the new one, so we won't be carrying the weight
of a compatability system with us till the end of times. We should make
clear that 4.0 will not be developed any further, and that it's just there
to keep old projects which won't develop any further as well keep on functioning.

I don't think keeping it compilable will be such a huge task.

-- 

Martijn Versteegh