Re: [AD] WIP 4.1.15 and CVS freeze

[Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 19:09 +1000, Peter Wang wrote:
> Elias Pschernig wrote:
> 
> >So, if somebody except Chris thinks rest() should have "long" instead of
> >"unsigned int" as parameter.. complain.
> >
> 
> How come "unsigned int" instead of "unsigned long"?
> 

Well, int just seemed to make more sense. Isn't long the same on the
common platforms anyway? I changed it to unsigned long in the first
patch actually, but Chris suggested "unsigned int" - and when thinking
about that it seemed to make more sense to me.

> > Since negative values were never
> >allowed, this should have no backwards compatibility problems, 
> >  
> >
> 
> Not quite true.  People binding Allegro to other languages or storing 
> the address of `rest' into a pointer will probably notice, but neither 
> are common enough to matter.
> 

Hm, true. And I think the same. And for 4.2 it will hopefully be named
al_rest. And rest should probably made an inline function inside
alcompat.c or something.

> Does this mean more argument/return types will become unsigned in 
> future?  I reckon unsigned-ness can be a bitch to work with.  The 
> "unsigned" keyword is just too long, and yet it feels gratuitous to 
> typedef unsigned int uint.
> 

Hm, don't know. I guess, where negative values make no sense, we should
use unsigned. I just thought about changing rest while working on it.

-- 
Elias Pschernig