Albrecht Schlosser wrote: > Michael Sweet wrote: >> imm wrote: >>> ... >>> Also, if we are going to break the 1.1 ABI, do we want to re-name >>> some of the more inaccurately named functions and methods whilst we >>> are at it? >> >> My recommendation would be to rename them and provide the old names >> as inline methods/functions that are flagged as deprecated. Then if >> (*if*) we did another minor/major release we could remove them. > > Maybe most of the functions could be handled this way (renamed and > inline methods), but as Matthias wrote there are some with "duplicate" > names like Fl_Scroll::position() and Fl_Widget::position(). For these, > I'd recommend to remove the old ones immediately, because otherwise > there would be trouble when removing the inline methods later (in a > widget derived from Fl_Scroll, position() would _still_ mean > Fl_Scroll::position() until the inline method would be removed). IMHO, > _one_ big cut but be better than two smaller ones.
Yes, there may be cases like Fl_Scroll::position() where we purposely break source compatibility, however we'll need to document those cases, especially for Fl_Scroll::position() since it and Fl_Widget::position() both take two integers... :( -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw dot com Internet Printing and Document Software http://www.easysw.com _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
