Re: [AD] Prefixing (was: rest and yield_timeslice)

[Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 09:15 -0400, Chris La Mantia wrote:
> From: "Evert Glebbeek" <eglebbk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> >I'm all for doing this for 4.2, but I don't think it should go into WIP
> 4.1.15
> >just for rest(). IMO, this is something to start doing after the upcoming
> WIP
> >release.
> >This will also set a clear goal for the 4.1.16 WIP: present a prefixed API
> in
> >preparation for the final 4.2 release.
> 
> Isn't this a pretty major change for a 4.0 to 4.2 update?  It seems like
> this would be something for the mythical Allegro 5...
> 

Not really. We decided a long time ago (before the 4.0 release) that we
want prefixing, and almost 4.0.0 would have been prefixed. The API will
be almost the same besides that (with some minor changes to make it a
bit more consistent, how many and which changes is still open).

If we decide that Allegro is more or less in its final state, and we
don't expect it to live on much longer, then I'd agree, we could just
say we don't want prefixing and cleaning of the API. But if we want it
to be developed in the future, I think it is absolutely necessary to get
away from the old DOS 320x200-mode API and clean it up gradually during
4.1.x. There's nothing stopping you from continuing to use 4.0.x. 4.0.4
shouldn't have any major bugs anymore I think.

And with the mentioned compatibility layer, there even will be minimal
changes required to keep using the 4.0.x API. And also the changes for
maintainers of old software to upgrade to 4.2 should be minimal.

Personally, I actually wouldn't care to name the version with the
prefixed symbols Allegro 5.0 o Allegro 7.0 or whatever - the name is
much less important than the actual lib to me. But given the agreed on
naming scheme, it should be 4.2.0, since there's no major changes, just
prefixing and minor API cleaning.

-- 
Elias Pschernig