[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On 2005-12-12, Vincent Penecherc'h <Vincent.Penecherch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Yes. But I have no better idea on what to name them and think
> > the chances of name clashes are low, since we use the _AL_ prefix.
>
> Why not AL_MALLOC etc (eg, lose the leading underscore) ?
> And if it's to distinguish internals from non internals,
> then what about ALINT_MALLOC, or AL_INT_MALLOC ?
Ugly?
>
> (and, if it's internal, why bother with AL at all).
In case it leaks out. At any rate, code is less confusing when you know
where the functions and macros are come from.
I've committed the patch. I will apply a patch to the 4.2 that makes it
use _AL_MALLOC, etc, just so the 4.2 and 4.3 branches don't diverge
unnecessarily, but the 4.2 branch won't get customisable memory
management routines.
Peter