| Re: [AD] SF.net SVN: alleg:[12523] allegro/branches/4.9 |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 11:46 +1000, Peter Wang wrote:
> > > It's actually ALLEGRO_FILE. Still want to change it?
> >
> > to _file maybe?
>
> I avoided that because al_load_<format>_file doesn't distinguish it much
> from al_load_<format>. _fh is fine to me.
>
> [Really ALLEGRO_FILE should be ALLEGRO_STREAM, and ALLEGRO_STREAM should
> be ALLEGRO_AUDIOSTREAM... but I'm NOT suggesting that because it affects
> a lot of function names badly.]
Well, _fh is no better than _fp considering the parameter type is
ALLEGRO_FILE. The al_load_*_entry name was from when ALLEGRO_ENTRY was
actually used as file handle.
What about using just _f? If what we're doing is add some suffix without
much meaning, then _f should be as good as _fp or _fh.
> > I also think we should rename these two at the same time:
> >
> > al_stream_from_file -> al_stream_sample
> > al_load_config_file -> al_load_ini
>
> "Sample" suggests a short sound snippet to me.
> al_stream_audio/al_stream_audio_file?
Maybe we should rename ALLEGRO_SAMPLE to ALLEGRO_AUDIO? When the
documentation measures the length of "samples" in a unit of "samples",
it doesn't really make sense right now.
> > Also, why is there no al_stream_from_file_fp currently? Is it not
> > needed?
>
> No reason, I think.
I wonder if streaming an .ogg from inside a .zip works. I guess it
should work, even without such a function. Still seems that if we
provide _fp functions for some file types, we should provide it for all.
--
Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx>