Re: [AD] Renamed API second draft

[Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz <gradha@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> >> getpixel     ->   al_get_pixel
> >> _getpixel    ->   al_get_pixel_8
> >> _getpixel15  ->   al_get_pixel_15
> >> _getpixel16  ->   al_get_pixel_16
> >> _getpixel24  ->   al_get_pixel_24
> >> _getpixel32  ->   al_get_pixel_32
> >
> > You get rid of the distinction between inline functions and regular
> > ones ?
> Not such a good idea imho, since the inline versions won't work on video
> bitmaps.  The leading _ has the effect of giving you a 'be careful'
> feeling ;-)

I've always programmed to what the documentation says, not to what the
function names look like, so the trailing number would be enough for
me. Do you prefer this?

   al_get_pixel
   _al_get_pixel_8
   _al_get_pixel_15
   _al_get_pixel_16
   _al_get_pixel_24
   _al_get_pixel_32

I've personally always used underscores as notation for library function
names which couldn't be made static and hence made it to the user space,
who shouldn't use them even when he knew about them (because I keep them
in an internal header file). I prefer an underscore prefixed free API.

-- 
 Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz   gradha@xxxxxxxxxx   http://gradha.infierno.org/