From: <HBB...@t-...> - 2007-11-28 21:41:27
|
Allin Cottrell wrote: > Should I take this comment as a "vote" in favor of handling this > issue by means of a new variable in the terminal structure rather > than a new function pointer? Yes. > That is, Ethan has (I think) alluded to things other than a simple > scale factor, that specific terminals might want to provide. A > function pointer is inherently extensible, Not really. An API entry point created with the pre-existing intention of extending it later, in some as yet unkown way, is basically a declaration of capitulation. It states "I don't know how to design this, so I won't design it at all." As soon as you add features to the function, you just end up having to do exactly what the terminal API was explicitly designed *not* to need: to patch up all drivers that already have the new function to cover its new aspect. > but if we add a variable to handle scale, it's possible we might end > up having to add more variables to cope with fancier variants on the > basic idea. That's exactly how the system is supposed to be used, yes. |