Re: [AD] Prefixing

[Chris <kcat@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Elias Pschernig wrote:
> I agree. The "do it only once" just is impractical. The point of 4.2,
> 4.4, and so on is just that - it will not be 100% compatible.

If I make a program with Allegro 4.2, I fully expect it to compile in 
4.3, 4.4, etc. There's a difference between changing the API and 
breaking the API. You change the API by making new functions to 
supercede old ones.. you break the API by removing said old ones. I'm 
all for changing the API, but not breaking it. That's what we only do 
once. That also goes for any new function created.

> So, you wouldn't do prefixing? To me, it just makes the API cleaner.
> Immediately know which symbols belong to Allegro, and which are my own.
> I agree that it is overrated though, we should just do it and not put
> too much meaning into it.

I agree. It's just like namespacing and shouldn't indicate anything 
special beyond that.

> It's just what I want to do for 4.2, it's an incremental
> improvement of the API - no big changes (i see prefixing as similiar to
> no chagne at all), just some of the most crying inconsistencies (and
> some smaller ones) fixed.

I don't quite agree with this though. If you're going to make an 
al_set_gfx_mode, make sure it's good and fixes the problems the current 
function has. We don't want to be making an al_set_gfx_mode_ex later on. 
The same goes for all the other functions (most noteably the blending 
routines).

- Kitty Cat