Re: [AD] SF.net SVN: alleg:[12071] allegro/branches/4.9

[Peter Wang <novalazy@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2009-04-15, Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue April 14 2009, Evert Glebbeek wrote:
> > On 14 Apr 2009, at 9:28 , Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> > > There is a reason I asked for input a long time ago. All these
> > > sudden changes
> > > are a bit of a shock. Why was it fine before and now its somehow
> > > broken?
> >
> > Don't take it personally.
> > You implement something and at some point you (or someone else)
> > realises that there's a reason to change it - so they change it at
> > that point.
> 
> I'm just wondering why its done now all of a sudden, instead of back when I 
> was asking for input?

I already answered this.

Another reason: most of the time I didn't have a good idea what you were
trying to do.  You posted function prototypes and a few rough
descriptions, the rest of it being inside your head.  Since I didn't
understand, I didn't speak up.  I did ask for documentation a few times.

> All these changed that aren't even being discussed. Just 
> someone deciding thats whats best and making several whole sale changes 
> without asking.

It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.  I didn't make any
substantial changes yet anyway; there are bigger changes afoot and they
are being discussed.

> > > No one will be used to allegro's api, so they shouldn't find a
> > > different, more sane ordering /bad/.
> >
> > The order is completely arbitrary (there is no reason one order should
> > be better than another, but it does somewhat depend on what you're
> > used to), so I would say the best thing to do is go with whatever the
> > "standard" convention is. Otherwise it gets confusing.
> 
> Well then, why don't we do that for everything then? Lets change the api back 
> to being a much closer clone of stdio as I had originally planned then.

That's more than fine with me.  I would prefer it.

Peter