On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 07:11:41AM +1300, Ralph Versteegen wrote: > 2009/12/29 <[email protected]>: > > jay > > 2009-12-28 16:02:34 -0800 (Mon, 28 Dec 2009) > > 146 > > New backend interfaces, updated. Added GFX_PREFERENCES as a preference > > structure. Added interfaces: gfx_SetPreferences() and gfx_GetPreferences(). > > --- > > U wip/gfx.new.h > > _______________________________________________ > > Ohrrpgce mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org > > > > Wait, I don't think that this is a good idea. The more complicated > idea of a list of key-value pairs is much more flexible. Most of the > things that you've put in GFX_PREFERENCES are gfx_directx specific, > and you've left out things from other backends, like zoom. And it's > clearly beneficial to be able to add a new option to a backend without > having to update all the backends. > > Using key-values pairs doesn't mean having to use gfx_setoption or > similar. We could modify gfx_Get/SetPreferences to work on an actual > list. > > Also (in response to the next commit), yes, parsing command line > options and reading preferences is very similar, and the intention was > to read preferences and then pass them to the backend with > gfx_setoption, but if gfx_setoption is removed, we would still need > some way to figure out which commandline options should be sent to/are > parsed by the backend. What's the plan if you remove gfx_setoption, to > hardcode a list of options for the graphics backend? I've been > thinking that we should go down this route anyway, though it seems > undesirable.
Because command-line options should override config file options... --- James Paige _______________________________________________ Ohrrpgce mailing list [email protected] http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
