Re: [AD] Function parameter ordering conventions

[Evert Glebbeek <eglebbk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Eh, this is just asking for trouble! You want an interface to be
> consistent: a new user using al_draw_bitmap should be right to  
> assume that
> similar functions would work roughly the same (al_put_pixel is similar
> enough, three parameter, one is a pointer). If the above syntax was  
> used,
> he would have to make a round-trip to the manual for every single
> function, because he'd never be sure what the parameter order would be
> like - not good!

Not at all! As was pointed out, the convention then becomes that  
primitives follow the pattern "position and geometry" followed by  
"colour", while blit operations become "what to blit" followed by  
"where and how". They are logically distinct.
It's a matter of how you read the code. If I draw a bitmap, I draw "a  
bitmap" at "some location". If I draw a pixel, I set "a pixel  
somewhere" to "a colour".

As already pointed out, every other putpixel-like function out there  
seems to follow the pattern "x, y, colour" and it's probably a good  
idea not to be the odd-one out.

> Just curious, was a state-based API actually agreed upon?

Not if you ask me, no.

Evert