Re: [AD] Allegro 4.2.0 RC1 timetable

[Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On June 4, 2005 02:40 pm, Chris wrote:
> Only problem I can see is this:
> > +AL_FUNC(void *, al_dat_load_data, (PACKFILE *f, long size));
> > +AL_FUNC(void *, al_dat_load_font, (PACKFILE *f, long size));
> > +AL_FUNC(void *, al_dat_load_sample, (PACKFILE *f, long size));
> > +AL_FUNC(void *, al_dat_load_midi, (PACKFILE *f, long size));
> > +AL_FUNC(void *, al_dat_load_bitmap, (PACKFILE *f, long size));
> > +AL_FUNC(void *, al_dat_load_rle_sprite, (PACKFILE *f, long size));
> > +AL_FUNC(void *, al_dat_load_compiled_sprite, (PACKFILE *f, long size));
> > +AL_FUNC(void *, al_dat_load_xcompiled_sprite, (PACKFILE *f, long size));
> > +
> > +AL_FUNC(void, al_dat_unload_sample, (SAMPLE *s));
> > +AL_FUNC(void, al_dat_unload_midi, (MIDI *m));
>
> AFAIK, we're not using a newer naming scheme until 4.3 to avoid
> confusion between the new API and old. IMO, the names should be left
> alone. Also, what's the point of the two unload functions? Wouldn't
> destroy_sample/destroy_midi be enough?
>

the functions were there before, I just translated em ;) Also, I was going to 
keep the names, but entheh convinced me otherwise. and since they are mainly 
internal, the names shouldn't really matter..

-- 
Thomas Fjellstrom
tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx