Re: [AD] kcm audio

[Elias P. <eli...@gm...>]

On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 13:52 -0700, Chris Robinson wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 July 2009 10:28:21 am Elias Pschernig wrote:
> > I'm also wondering about the parameter order in cases like this:
> >
> > al_attach_stream_to_mixer(mixer, stream)
> >
> > Wouldn't al_attach_stream_to_mixer(stream, mixer), i.e. the same
> > parameter order as in the function name, make more sense?
> 
> The original idea was to put the target (object being acted on) as the first 
> parameter, ie. the mixer is being modified to have a stream attached. This 
> behavior would mirror C++ where the 'this' pointer would typically be a hidden 
> first parameter.
> 

Yes, and the name of the function was al_mixer_attach_stream. I always
got the order right then.

But now with the new name, we have the verb "attach to", which has as
its first object *what* to attach, and then the *to what* to attach it
to. The parameter order therefore appears swapped to me.

-- 
Elias Pschernig <el...@us...>