[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2941) RFC: canvas_put_sprite

[Rafał Bursig <bursig@xxxxxxxxx>]

> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 06:34:02PM -0800, Jason Short via RT wrote:
> >
> > [jdorje - Thu Jan 30 06:32:34 2003]:
> >
> > > 3.  Introduce a single function, canvas_put_sprite(), that takes a
> > > void*
> > > (or a struct canvas *) as a parameter.  Now the function just
> draws
> > > the
> > > sprite onto the canvas that is specified.  In the case of the
> void*,
> > > this will probably just point to the pixmap/surface onto which the
> > > sprite will be drawn.  The problem here is that since the
> high-level
> > > mapview drawing routines are only designed for one mapview, we
> would
> > > need to introduce the hack that NULL refers to the "default" map
> > > canvas.
> > >   Later we can work to have all of these functions be passed (by
> the
> > > GUI) the parameter that specifies which map canvas.  (The city
> dialog
> > > functions will always be called by the GUI, so there is no trouble
> > > there
> > > for any of these 3 ideas.)  Using a struct canvas * instead means
> an
> > > additional level of indirection, but is slightly more type-safe
> (the
> > > NULL special case would still apply).  We might even be able to
> use a
> > > struct Sprite * that specifies the drawing target (again, with a
> NULL
> > > special-case).
>
> > This patch implements it this way, using a void*.  This is
> significantly
> > better IMO.  I could have introduced a struct canvas, but chose not
> to yet.
> >
> > Does anybody have an opinion on this?
>
> Yes. Don't use void *. Both of "struct canvas { char dummy;};" or
> "typedef void *canvas_t." are better.
Hi

If I understand your intention... you want move all draw code to 
"common" part and leave in "gui" side only "put_sprite" function...
how do you want make correct fog of war drawing ?


IMHO this type of unification give you rather bad aspects.

Rafal

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poczuj tendencje wzrostowa! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f16c7