Re: [AD] Function parameter ordering conventions

[Colin Ward <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20/06/2007, you wrote:
> 
> Elias and I were discussing how function parameters should be ordered
> with the new API. I thought (and I think Elias agreed) that the order
> function(src, src_params, dst, dst_params) is the most natural, and
> that flags should go last. For example al_put_pixel(color, dx, dy),
> al_draw_bitmap(picture, dx, dy, flags), and
> al_draw_scaled_bitmap(picture, sx, sy, sw, sh, dx, dy, dw, dh, flags).
> I think this style is more consistant than the current one used in
> Allegro, while not different enough to turn current users off of the
> new API.
>
> Since the API will be around for a while, and we want to get it right,
> I'm asking here for other people's opinions. How do you think the
> ordering should go?

I think that's good thinking.  Consistency is one of the most important
aspects of programming because it minimises the amount you have to
remember!

But when would the changes be implemented?  I would think the 4.9 release? 
I have been compiling lots of software for the Amiga and it compiles
without changes, so it would be silly to have to "fix" old games if the
Allegro update was only, say, 4.2.x -> 4.3.x IMHO.  But if I am correct 4.9
will be such a large change that that would be the time to do it.

-- 
/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
[Hitman/Code HQ - 6502/z80/68000/604e/80x86/ARM coder - Amiga rulez!]
[VZ-200/VIC-20/MZ-700/c16/c64*10/c128*8/Plus-4/CPC464/CD32/500*2    ]
[600/1000/1200*2/A4000/SNES/N64/Dreamcast/Athlon 1100/AmigaOne      ]
[Assembly Language: The most fun you can have with your clothes on! ]
\-------------------------------------------------------------------/