[Openal-devel] Misc OpenAL SI questions/requests
Sven.Panne at aedion.de
Sat Aug 13 11:25:45 PDT 2005
I have a few questions/requests about the OpenAL SI:
* Who is actually working on which part of the SI? I see the Creative guys on
the "win" subtree, and I intend to improve the "linux" tree a bit (build
system, 1.1 compliance, a few bug fixes), but first I'd like to make sure
that there will be no collisions with other people's plans.
* What is the reason for splitting all public header files into a foo.h and a
footypes.h part? IMHO things would be simpler if we merged the latter into
the former (adjusting our #includes internally, of course).
* Can we remove the ALbitfield/ALclampf/ALclampd types from the AL headers?
They were unused in 1.0 and they are not in the 1.1 spec, so they are just
polluting our namespace...
* The AL header has typedefs for the types of the various API entries, like
LPALGENSOURCES for alGenSources, but only when AL_NO_PROTOTYPES is not
#defined. These typedefs would be handy for OpenAL users in any case, so can
they be moved out of that typedef? Furthermore, to avoid redundancy, these
typedefs should really be used for the "no prototypes" part of that header.
* The names of these typedefs are a bit inconsistent: For a function named
foo, the AL header uses LPFOO, the linux extension header uses PFNFOOPROC and
I think following the common naming scheme under Windows would be FOOPROC.
Can we agree on a common naming scheme for the OpenAL SI? I'd vote for the
More information about the Openal-devel