Re: [AD] Prefixing

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris wrote:

> Peter Wang wrote:
>
> > 3. Hey, we only get one shot at this, and it has to be 100% absolutely
> >   completely perfect!  Let's restart from scratch... Allegro 5!  Hurrah!
>
>
> I pretty much agree right up until this. I definately DO NOT want to 
> start from scratch.


Good, that's exactly what I said :-)

> I personally do'nt care about prefixing from a personal standpoint. 
> However, it becomes obvious that without prefixing you'll run into 
> name clashing. This is why C++ introduced namespaces, this is why 
> internal compiler variables start with _.. to give the programmer more 
> freedom in choosing variable and function names without risk of 
> duplicating something already made by someone else.


Sure, but is it worth the trouble of prefixing the entire API for that?  
Personally, I don't think so.  To what extent can a compatibility header 
bridge the gap between a unprefixed API and a prefixed API?  It's not 
possible to use inline functions for everything, and the C preprocessor 
is shithouse.  How do you handle `key', for example?

Now, we have had clashes with other libraries in the past.  Those were 
fixed incrementally, e.g. clear -> clear_bitmap and fhypot -> fixhypot, 
whilst maintaining compatibility.  I don't expect very many clashes in 
the future, simply because every other library the user is likely to use 
Allegro alongside will probably have prefixes :-)

> Cleaning up the API would also be a good thing. It's quite poor for 
> today's programs. However, what I proposed isn't too different from 
> what's already being done with the *_ex functions. But instead of 
> merely depricating the old functions, we place them into a 
> compatibility header  that is, for now, included by default.


Ok.

Peter