| Re: [AD] namespace conflict with curses |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] namespace conflict with curses
- From: Chris <chris.kcat@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:30:22 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=gVUB47kBWW6EeF0gEBpBU8+y7dVeky0zJyyuDhdoFQj43xm9+heP7CxBgZw0JNFQDzJ7foQfuMB1ZkjYlPP68pMG/gZ5ZCdiJKJ8crsXjOqUj8/BlJK6aeNW/5NQchRD5WsAZVwSzl37R8B2NLSs9DbY9dN1uFc3yfustQXkqTw=
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 11:38 am, guilt wrote:
> How about AL_BITMAP so that we can avoid clashes with wingdi.h ?? We could
> also internally alias AL_BITMAP to BITMAP or so, to give backward
> compatibility... Incidentally we were having a discussion in #allegro about
> this today...
And as was said, I believe the new structs' internals aren't going to be
exposed to the public API (eg. having 'typedef struct AL_BITMAP AL_BITMAP' in
the public headers, and adding 'struct AL_BITMAP { ... }' in the
internal-only headers). This is so changing the structures won't break ABI
compatiblity, since the only structure accessing will be in the lib, and you
only handle pointers to them (with accessor functions).
However, if you alias AL_BITMAP to Allegro's BITMAP now, it'll encourage
programs to access the internals of AL_BITMAP, which would cause API breakage
later if we try to hide them.