Mark Adams wrote: > Having read Denis's recent description of the LEVELS function in > another thread, I suspect the current implementation is not complete. > I had understood that if a layer supported LEVELS, you could position > it above or below the primary using SetLevel(-1) or SetLevel(1) as > appropriate. However, Denis's description seems to imply that if two > surfaces can be swapped over, both should support LEVELS and the > gfxdriver should have a fixed range of levels that it recognises, just > -1 and 0 or 0 and 1 in this case. Is that correct?
Good point :) Hmm, well, if you don't provide LEVELS on the primary it's fixed at level 0. So there's no other way than having three levels for these two layers... -- Best regards, Denis Oliver Kropp .------------------------------------------. | DirectFB - Hardware accelerated graphics | | http://www.directfb.org/ | "------------------------------------------" _______________________________________________ directfb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-dev
