RE: [AD] new_api_branch: al_create_display and blit patch

["Robert Ohannessian" <ROhannessian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

AGL uses flags for a completely different purpose than the Allegro API.
The flags in Allegro specify the *operation* that should be done. In
AGL, it specifies the *options* that should be used.

Granted, it's a semantic difference.

I feel more strongly about putting the flags in front for Allegro, but I
won't argue for it. They go in either front or back.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: alleg-developers-admin@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:alleg-
> developers-admin@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:42 PM
> To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [AD] new_api_branch: al_create_display and blit patch
> 
> Evert Glebbeek wrote:
> > I haven't commited my blit() patch yet.
> 
> Speaking of al_blit, I still think it's best to move the flags to the
> end. Even in AGL, Bob puts the flags for allegro_gl_make_texture_ex at
> the end. While it may be quicker to understand what's being done with
> them in front, it goes against standard and expected formatting, IMO.
> People would probably end up using a 'flags' variable to store the
flags
> anyway, and pass that to al_blit, which would negate such a reason.
> 
> > By the way, can we have a compat header file for compatibility
stuff,
> just
> > as we have compat C files? It'll help clean up some of the headers.
> 
> I thought this was the plan, and to have Allegro automatically include
> it/them with a certain define?
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes
> Want to be the first software developer in space?
> Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes!
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7393&alloc_id=16281&op=click
> --
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alleg-developers