[AD] RE: [AD] RE: [AD] RE: [AD] doc patch to mention the right include files

[Vincent Penquerc'h <Vincent.Penquerch@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: [AD] RE: [AD] RE: [AD] doc patch to mention the right include files

> But if Allegro defines a symbol called, eg., 'clear', then won't that
> symbol still conflict at the linking stage with other 'clear'
> symbols,
> even if it is not declared? If that is the case, then I don't see the
> point in separate headers (although my machine is a fast one).

Unfortunately, it will be more work to split the libs.
And I don't know how the linker managers to kick unused symbols
away. But in essence, your are right. I guess part of me thought
it was cleaner to do this :) I always grumbled when I wanted to
just include the definition of fixed, or the unicode routines,
just to use it in a header file which had nothing to do with
Allegro. Or in a C++ file, in the unicode case.

--
Vincent Penquerc'h