[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On 2002-11-03, Eric <ebotcazou@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think it's really time we depreciated set_clip() and its weird
> > semantics. Here is a proposal.
> >
> > void set_clip_ex(BITMAP *bitmap, int x, int y, int w, int h);
> > Set the clipping rectangle of a bitmap.
> > Nothing special wrt to 0, 0, 0, 0.
>
> Does it imply enable_clipping() ?
No.
> > void get_clip(BITMAP *bitmap, int *rx, int *ry, int *rw, int *rh);
> > Get the clipping rectangle of a bitmap.
>
> What does it return when clipping is turned off ?
The same as when the clipping is turned on.
> > void enable_clipping(BITMAP *bitmap);
> > void disable_clipping(BITMAP *bitmap);
> > Doesn't modify the clipping rectangle.
>
> They are not really orthogonal to set_clip_ex(), are they ?
I think they are. set_clip_ex() deals with the clipping rectangle, and
these two functions deal with turning clipping on and off.
> Moreover, I think we shoud devise a way to specify an "empty" clipping
> rectangle (for which cl = cr and ct = cb) so that all drawing operations are
> silenced, provided that it doesn't require an extensive rework of all the
> drawing routines of the library.
Is w=0, h=0 sufficient?
--
王浩禎