Re: [Pipmak-Devel] Transition interrupts

[Christian W. <cwa...@gm...>]

Aidan Gauland wrote:
> Christian Walther wrote:
>> Aidan Gauland wrote:
>>>  Using your Lua code, I was able to make changes to Pipmak, so it will 
>>> now ignore a click during a transition, but will also ignore the button 
>>> up event ONLY if it is from a click DURING a transition.  It would 
>>> probably make more sense if you look at my changes.
>> Looks good, from the distance (I don't have time to really test it right 
>> now). I wonder, would any bad things happen if you'd check for "&& 
>> mouseButton != 0" instead of "&& clickDuringTransition == 0" in the 
>> SDL_MOUSEBUTTONUP case? Then you could get rid of the new 
>> clickDuringTransition variable.
> 
>   Wouldn't that just be, in English:  "If a mouse button is down"?

"If a mouse button is down from the point of view of Pipmak", yes. Not 
necessarily "if a mouse button is physically down", since you skip 
setting mouseButton to non-zero at SDL_MOUSEBUTTONDOWN if 
TRANSITION_RUNNING.

> If another button was still down when one comes up, how would that tell 
> us if the click was from before a transition or not?

"one mouse button coming up while another one is still down" is not a 
mouse-up event from the point of view of Pipmak. Mouse-up doesn't happen 
until *all* buttons are up. That's what made most sense to me when I 
decided to have Pipmak expose a one-button-mouse interface to projects.

>>>  Oh, I almost forgot, I'm also sending a patch to the file 
>>> build-linux/Makefile, which changes the path to look for the Lua, and 
>>> PhysFS libraries.  It changes the paths to where the Debain packages for 
>>> these libraries get installed, but I don't know if it would work for 
>>> non-Debain Linux systems.
>> This means that the instructions in Building.txt wouldn't work anymore. 
>> You'd need to change these instructions too. But even then I'm not sure 
>> if I want this. Can we rely on all distributions having packages for Lua 
>> and Physfs? Perhaps something could be done with automatically 
>> determining whether these libraries are present in the system, and 
>> otherwise use the ones installed in the build-linux folder according to 
>> the instructions? Would it be possible to use system-installed libraries 
>> without modifying the makefile by placing symlinks in build-linux?
> 
>   I tried that, and it didn't work, but it might, if I changed the make 
> file, in which case I might as well change it in the way that I did.

OK.

>> Also, you're linking Lua and Physfs dynamically now (assuming their 
>> Debian packages include dynamic libraries). That's fine when you're 
>> compiling from source, but for the distributed binary I'd rather move 
>> towards linking more libraries statically, not less, to avoid dependency 
>> problems.
>>
>> Is there a reason for the removal of two empty lines?
> 
>   I think Lua is pretty widely available on Linux distributions, but I 
> don't know about PhysFS.  And the removal of the two lines is just so 
> Emacs doesn't give ma a warning.

What does that warning say?

> What about adding an optional patch for the Makefile?

I think it would be easier to maintain if we could either autodetect the 
presence of system-installed libraries (do they include pkg-config files 
or anything?), or provide a command-line argument to switch to using 
them ("make use_system_lua=1 pipmak" or something).

  -Christian