| Re: [AD] Mini-synchronization API proposal for 4.1.x |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 07:46:43PM +0000, Laurence Withers wrote:
> > Hence I propose al_lock_mutex()/al_unlock_mutex().
>
> Hmm, I know Peter said verb/noun, but this is different to pthreads,
> and I at least will always get this the wrong way round if that is the
> case!
I thought I was me the only moron asking for that :) Now seriously,
while the new API should be readable and logical, if it wraps around
well known functions which come from other sources, renaming them means
getting in the way of the user.
Hence the new API will keep ugly names like al_findfirst, al_ustrcpy,
etc, because they are what 100% of the C programmers are used to. So if
you want to map over pthread_mutex_destroy, you can use al_mutex_destroy,
and explain in the documentation that all this comes from pthreads (or
don't explain it at all, few people will notice the convention change).
--
Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz gradha@xxxxxxxxxx http://gradha.infierno.org/