Re: [AD] Indexed datafiles

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2005-12-28, Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 11:03 +0100, Evert Glebbeek wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 December 2005 07:37, Peter Wang wrote:
> > > I wonder if something like this should go into 4.2.1 instead of 4.3.0?
> > 
> > I don't think so. Doesn't adding symbols to the DLL in Windows break ABI 
> > backward compatibility?
> > Of course, if we *really* want to add this (I'm not saying we don't), we 
> > *can* make it a static inline function. That way, 4.2.0 programmes can 
> > still use the 4.2.1 DLL (and vice versa, but we don't care).
> 
> Hm. I remember hearing about this, but forgot the details.. so can you
> clarify a bit more? Isn't there a way to have symbolic lookups with
> DLLs? Otherwise, we cannot add any new functions to 4.2.1, but we can
> somehow work around that with "static inline"?

Actually, see the top of misc/fixdll.sh.  We should be able to
add symbols to DLL otherwise all that work Eric did is wasted :-)

> > > It would also be nice for the documentation to mention the version(s)
> > > of Allegro in which the function were introduced.
> > 
> > Yes, that would be a good idea, especially now that the API is changing. 
> > Helps to keep track of what has been done too. It shouldn't be too hard to 
> > piece this together from the changelogs, though we may want to restrict 
> > ourselves to changes since 4.0.0...
> 
> Do we want anything special for it, like a @version command for _tx? Or
> simply add notes at the end of functions which are not in 4.0.0, and
> tell in which stable version they appeared first.

Would be nice but given nobody wants to maintain the current makedoc
any longer I think just human-readable text is fine for now.

Peter