Error in the dokumentation of SDL_mixer 1.2.4

Hi!

In the manual of SDL_mixer 1.2.4 I find

4.3.2 Mix_PlayChannel
[snip]
loops
Number of loops, -1 is actually (unsigned int)(-1) loops.
Passing zero here plays nothing, and it will not cause an error.

Is this really so? On my system the sound is played ONCE if I
pass 0 as argument and TWICE if I pass 1 as argument.
But to be honest, I don’t have 1.2.4 installed yet. It just
seemed strange to me because I thought in case of an inconsistency
in the interpretation of arguments between versions, that would
surely be noted too in the doku, wouln’t it? Bye and kind regards,
Johannes

Number of loops, -1 is actually (unsigned int)(-1) loops.
Passing zero here plays nothing, and it will not cause an error.

Is this really so? On my system the sound is played ONCE if I
pass 0 as argument and TWICE if I pass 1 as argument.
But to be honest, I don’t have 1.2.4 installed yet. It just
seemed strange to me because I thought in case of an inconsistency
in the interpretation of arguments between versions, that would
surely be noted too in the doku, wouln’t it? Bye and kind regards,

If you specify 1 you’re saying “loop once” not “play the sound once”.

-1 loops is converted to an unsigned so it loops a bunch of times (not
infinitely, though)…I’m not sure I approve of this behaviour, personally.

–ryan.

“Ryan C. Gordon” wrote:

Number of loops, -1 is actually (unsigned int)(-1) loops.
Passing zero here plays nothing, and it will not cause an error.

Is this really so? On my system the sound is played ONCE if I
pass 0 as argument and TWICE if I pass 1 as argument.
But to be honest, I don’t have 1.2.4 installed yet. It just
seemed strange to me because I thought in case of an inconsistency
in the interpretation of arguments between versions, that would
surely be noted too in the doku, wouln’t it? Bye and kind regards,

If you specify 1 you’re saying “loop once” not “play the sound once”.

-1 loops is converted to an unsigned so it loops a bunch of times (not
infinitely, though)…I’m not sure I approve of this behaviour, personally.

–ryan.

Ah, thanks, I think I understand now how this is meant! Of course loops
then really is the number of loops. I find however that “it plays
nothing” is a bit missleading. I find “it loops never” would be
better. Thanks, Johannes.