| Re: [AD] config function naming |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 11:34 +1100, Peter Wang wrote:
> Elias brought up the example of naming of the config functions,
> so let's try to fix that:
>
> al_config_add_comment -> al_add_config_comment
> al_config_add_section -> al_add_config_section
> al_config_create -> al_create_config
> al_config_destroy -> al_destroy_config
> al_config_get_value -> al_get_config_value
> al_config_merge -> al_merge_config
> al_config_merge_into -> al_merge_config_into
> al_config_read -> al_load_config_file
> al_config_set_value -> al_set_config_value
> al_config_write -> al_save_config_file
>
> I'm not sure about al_merge_config/al_merge_config_into. al_merge_config
> doesn't suggest it returns a new config. More importantly, though, the
> behaviour of the function is a little bit complex as it's not obvious what
> to do with comments so we don't keep comments from the second config
> structure at all. "Merge" might not be the best word.
>
I think the new names are all fine, except maybe do this:
al_config_read -> al_load_config
That way it's in sync with al_load_bitmap/al_load_sample/... No reason
to append _file.
About al_merge_config, I wouldn't mind removing the function completely,
and rename al_merge_config_into into al_merge_config. Then instead of:
c3 = al_merge_config(c1, c2)
you would have:
c3 = al_create_config()
al_merge_config(cfg, c1)
al_merge_config(cfg, c2)
About the comments, I think we should change the implementation so
comments from the second file actually are retained, but only if the
first one has no comments.
--
Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx>