[SDL] SDL 2.0 API stabilization

Sik the hedgehog sik.the.hedgehog at gmail.com
Thu Mar 7 03:26:36 PST 2013


In my experience programmers have a tendency to ignore stdint.h
whenever possible :P

Now seriously, I completely ignored SDL types in favor of the stdint.h
ones so I wouldn't care about such a change. I don't know how many
projects rely on them, though, so no idea how much of an impact this
change would cause.

I suppose that in the worst case we could always tell the programmers
to just do this:

typedef Int8 int8_t;
typedef Int16 int16_t;
typedef Int32 int32_t;
typedef Int64 int64_t;
typedef Uint8 uint8_t;
typedef Uint16 uint16_t;
typedef Uint32 uint32_t;
typedef Uint64 uint64_t;

PS: if I recall correctly MSVS didn't come with stdint.h at all until
relatively recent versions, so I imagine that SDL not relying on
stdint.h may have been influenced by that.

2013/3/7, Alexey Petruchik <i100500 at gmail.com>:
> Another controversial proposal ;) Maybe it's time to remove SDL integer
> types (Uint8, ...) in favor of <stdint.h> types (uint8_t, int8_t, ...)? SDL
> integer types are just typedefs to stdint.h types so why we need them at
> all? SDL integer types removal will encourage programmers to use <stdint.h>
> types in their programs instead of spawning
> yet-another-alias-for-thing-that-already-has-a-name.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Sik the hedgehog
> <sik.the.hedgehog at gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> The problem would be that then you'd have to rename about every
>> function in order to achieve that, and I don't think many people would
>> be happy with that :/ (and besides, even though the SDL2 API still
>> isn't 100% fixed, I don't think that doing a near complete rewrite of
>> existent SDL2 programs is going to be a good idea).
>>
>> I'm not sure many people look up for a function in an alphabetical
>> list, though. Functions are already separated by category (both in the
>> wiki and in doxygen), in practice that seems to be way more useful
>> (and in fact it's pretty much the only way I look up for SDL
>> functions). If you already know the name beforehand an alphabetical
>> list is better, but at that point you don't care about whether it's
>> organized by categories or not.
>>
>> 2013/3/7, Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara at gmail.com>:
>> > So, for a brief moment there was a half idea of moving the sdl api from
>> > SDL_VERB_NOUN to SDL_NOUN_VERB
>> > so that for example SDL_TryLockMutex() would become SDL_MutexTryLock()
>> > This idea was thought on the basis that it would make the alphabetical
>> > listing more logical and would simplify grouping similar APIs.
>> >
>> > Is this idea still lingering around (and it's just a matter of
>> > volunteers
>> > submitting patches) or has it been discarded completely?
>> > Cheers,
>> > Vittorio
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Sam Lantinga <slouken at libsdl.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> We're on the road to release for SDL 2.0.
>> >>
>> >> To that end, most of the existing APIs are stable, and we'll only
>> >> change
>> >> them if it's critical.
>> >> There are a few things which are still being considered, such as the
>> >> iOS
>> >> event handling, and touch/mouse event semantics, but by and large the
>> API
>> >> is set for release.
>> >>
>> >> Please report bugs which are affecting you in the current snapshot:
>> >> http://www.libsdl.org/tmp/SDL-2.0.zip
>> >>
>> >> If anyone wants to fix anything currently in bugzilla, they are more
>> than
>> >> welcome:
>> >> http://bugzilla.libsdl.org
>> >>
>> >> Cheers!
>> >> --Sam
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> SDL mailing list
>> >> SDL at lists.libsdl.org
>> >> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> SDL mailing list
>> SDL at lists.libsdl.org
>> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>>
>



More information about the SDL mailing list