Re: [AD] proposed changes to sound API

[Evert Glebbeek <eglebbk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 16-Dec-08, at 8:12 PM, Peter Wang wrote:
> On 2008-12-16, Matthew Leverton <meffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > You like the proposed changes or the current A5 methods?
>
> The proposed changes.

Seconded!

> I meant this one:
>
>    bool al_stop_sample(ALLEGRO_SAMPLE *sample)
>
>    Stops all instances of the sample.
>
> But, yes, I see that al_stop_sample_instances() would be very close to
> al_stop_sample_instance().

I'm not sure I see the benefit other than it being more verbose?

> > al_stop_all_simple_samples() -> al_stop_samples()  [ or
> > al_stop_all_samples() ? ]
> > al_stop_sample() -> al_stop_sample_instance()
>
> Either of al_stop_samples() or al_stop_all_samples() seem fine to me.

Either would be fine with me too, unless al_stop_sample() remains  
al_stop_sample(), in which case al_stop_samples() might be a bit too  
similar (alhough I'm guilty of doing things like that in my own code).

Let's not forget to put al_get_<object>_<datatype>(<property>) ->  
al_get_<object>_<property> (eg, al_get_sample_frequency) to the TODO  
list; I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

Evert