Re: [AD] Function parameter ordering conventions

[Trent Gamblin <trent@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Evert Glebbeek wrote:
> There are a few cases (the blit functions come to mind) where the API 
> proposal (Bob's version anyway) has the mode as the first parameter. This 
> put me off at first (on the basis of flags last), but there is a rationale 
> for it: it isn't a flag in the sense that it *modifies* the behavior, it 
> is a mode that *defines* the behavior. Having played with this a bit, I 
> actually found that I did like both this distinction and ordering. I'd 
> recommend playing with it for a bit. As I said, my initial reaction 
> was "eeew! Flags should go last!" so don't dismiss the idea from the 
> outset on those grounds.

Well at this point, those flags are modifiers only. The blitting API has 
been revised: http://wiki.allegro.cc/NewAPI/Blitting.

> To turn that 180 degrees around, I don't think I like the strict 
> ordering "src, src_params, dst, dst_params", prefering "src, dst, 
> src_params, dst_params" in general. However, this possibly depends on 
> whatis more natural in a given circumstance.

Well for the graphics API, dst won't be there at all, so it's more like 
"src, src_params, dst_params".

> > For example al_put_pixel(color, dx, dy), 
>
> Don't like this ordering for put_pixel one bit, possibly because I've never 
> seen a put pixel function anywhere that used this ordering ever. If that's 
> right, I would recommend against deviating from the norm.

I would rather stay consistent with the rest of the API. If you're 
calling "draw picture at x, y" why not "draw color at x, y"?