From: Siggi L. <si...@us...> - 2002-06-28 22:03:05
|
Hi again, On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Guenter Bartsch wrote: > > xine_t *new_xine(void); [...] > hey, looks like I should've read the whole mail thread first :) ;-) > of course "new_xine", "vo_driver_t" and "ao_driver_t" breaks the xine > naming conventions (everything needs a "xine_" prefix), but i fully agree > with this idea For new_xine, I'd disagree: Firstly, having "_xine" in the name should be sufficient to avoid naming clashes. And secondly, this way, all the "xine_*" functions have one thing in common: they take a xine_t as the first argument. But I admit that's rather a cosmetic issue... Cheers, Siggi |