| Re: [AD] Allegro generalization/extension mechanism |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] Allegro generalization/extension mechanism
- From: guilt <karthikkumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:34:54 +0530
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=CMTjtXhCC+IhfxTlhoF/O3Pbug7OI8kdztJoVPeW+7jgTRXpLF9QIVtaoK0vYClIe4RNAcg9FsO7zi9/eqUu2hbgQ5VaV8jPVzmAACOXN4osGaUHaZ3ny2dGYRIeEXSvtzrDgMJczdMETLRCqVDV8Kpn+yk05489HlxiBcWcMrs=
It doesn't change a bit, right? So what's the problem. Let's say, as
an user i don't want the LBM or FLIC extensions, I could just link
dynamically with core and statically with BMP and PCX alone :P But
look at the overhead I need to have in my dynamic library because it's
just all in one together.. Read Elias' reply.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:08:36 -0800, Chris <chris.kcat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> guilt wrote:
> > like, if Allegro could support
> > AVIs than just FLICs or OGGs than just VOCs and WAVs, or PNGs than
> > just LBMs .. :)
>
> I can add Theora, Vorbis, and PNG support into the library right now
> without breaking anything currently in it (I could proably even do AVI,
> except AVI is just a container format that holds just about any video
> and audio format conceivable). Seperating the library won't change that
> one bit.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
> --
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alleg-developers
>
--
Karthik
http://guilt.bafsoft.net