Re: Fw: Re: [AD] messy allegro 5.0 stuff

[Sven Sandberg <svsa1977@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob wrote:
> You may also want to have a look at Lawrence's proposed API, 

I like that a lot, especially the new scancode API seems like both a
cleaner way of doing things and a very useful extension of the existing
API.

Some details: For al_read_key(), I'm a bit scared about having bit 31 as
a flag bit because that's the sign bit. I think Unicode characters have
range [0,65535], and in that case it would suffice for the return value
to be less than 0x10000 for unicode and greater for non-unicode. Or, we
could make it be positive for unicode and negative for non-unicode.

The same thing goes for AL_KEY_RELEASE, but you define it twice and the
latter definition is IMHO good :-)

Also, maybe it could be useful to have two separate functions to clear
the scancode buffer and the unicode buffer?

-- 
Sven Sandberg    svsa1977@xxxxxxxxxx    home.student.uu.se/svsa1977