Re: [AD] retrace_proc is wrong

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Elias Pschernig wrote:

> On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 13:13 +1000, Peter Wang wrote:
>
> > I suggest we deprecate retrace_proc in the unstable branch.  Given its 
> > uselessness, I would like to see it removed.  It could be retained as a 
> > DOS-only feature, but deprecated.
> >    
>
> I agree, we should deprecate it. I've seen it used quite oten in various
> Allegro programs, but only because people are too lazy to create a
> proper timer (see for example the uses in the Allegro examples itself),
> and never for its original purpose to sync to the monitor retrace.
>  

I'm thinking of going all out and deprecating all of these:

   timer_can_simulate_retrace()
   timer_simulate_retrace()
   timer_is_using_retrace()
   retrace_proc

The retrace simulation stuff is tied very closely to DOS and VGA/ModeX 
resolutions, and only works in pure DOS with VGA/ModeX.  Very few people 
will miss them.

retrace_proc we already discussed.

retrace_count would be left alone as too many things use it.  It's not 
too bad, if you just think of it as an every increasing counter with a 
misleading name.

Deprecating the retrace simulation stuff has a small effect on 
enable_triple_buffer().  To enable triple buffering in mode-X in pure 
DOS, enable_triple_buffer() needs the retrace simulator.  Since the 
retrace simulator stuff is still available (just deprecated) that will 
still work.  It will be as if the retrace simulator became just an 
internal detail, rather than something exposed to the user.

What do you think?

Peter