| Re: [AD] resource path functions [was: [patch] new configuration variable: resource_path] |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On 2004-09-22, Daniel Schlyder <daniel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for your detailed response! Some of your arguments
> against my patch are invalid because they argue against a
> set_allegro_resource_path() that the patch did not implement.
Indeed. Sorry for all the gibberish. I got winded up in a nearly
infinite loop and lost sense of what was going on. I didn't look
at the implementation and some complaints were made against my own
imagination, which admitedly is too creepy.
> Anyway, I see now how having 'priority' be the first argument would
> make it more natural to have just one API function and simplify
> implementation somewhat, so attached is a new patch that I hope
> you will find more acceptable.
Yes, it looks good. Thanks for your hard work. I'll try to apply
it this weekend unless somebody finds problems with it.
> > What do you do then? Sort alphabetically the paths with same
> > priority?
>
> My patch handled this by adding new paths with priority equal to
> existing ones after them in the list. Isn't that sufficient?
Rather than insufficient, arbitrary, which isn't bad. I guess some
people would like your decission, some would like sorting. Whenever
it is possible to choose between designs and one of them doesn't
require the user to remember external rules, the better.