Re: [AD] Latest mixer patch

[Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 11:28 +0200, Elias Pschernig wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 02:01 -0700, Chris wrote:
> > Elias Pschernig wrote:
> > > I'll add
> > > a comment about this to the docs and ABI compatibility section when
> > > committing.
> > 
> > I don't think this patch can be added to the 4.0 branch. Because it adds 
> > the global functions I listed out, ABI compatibility is impossible. If 
> > you remove those however, it should be fine.
> > 
> 
> Of course. Just was noting more or less to myself to add a comment to
> the ABI section in the docs.
> 
> > > I read through your changes (without trying to understand them :P) - and
> > > only made some minor formatting changes, and I used ASSERT() instead of
> > > modifying user provided parameters for set_mixer_quality and
> > > _set_mixer_position - since that's the way Allegro normally treats user
> > > parameters. (So instead of silently allowing errors to creep into the
> > > user code, the program aborts.)
> > > 
> > > +   if((quality < 0) || (quality > 2))
> > > +      quality = 2;
> > > 
> > > +   ASSERT(_sound_hq >= 0 && _sound_hq <= 2);
> > 
> > Well, the thing is, the Allegro docs never state that a value greater 
> > than 2 is invalid, and indeed you could create filters that are 
> > activated with quality 3 or higher, as well I also would think a value 
> > of <= -1 would indicate the default (which is currently 2).
> > 
> 
> I see, makes more sense. I'll change it back and describe the behavior
> in the docs.
> 

Committed, as well as docs updated (thanks to Ben and Chris for help
with that).

If we decide that all the get_* functions are better handled with config
variables, we can still replace them before the next release - as well
as handle any other problems which might occur with the new mixer.

-- 
Elias Pschernig