This question has come up in the past (I recall a similar thread about a year
ago) and I think the general concensus was that SDL was intended to be “Simple”
(hence, “Simple DirectMedia Layer” and that starting to add in functions
like this make it not quite as simple any more (relative, I know, but that was
what I recall).
I was under the impression SDL was /not/ a catch all for any and every needed
feature, and that functionality like this can best be delivered by other
add-on libraries. I tend to agree with this, because for quite a few
applications these features aren’t needed.
Then again, a simple soft-stretch function is a pretty nice thing to have, and
as long as we don’t go nuts with tons of rotating, scaling, aliasing, etc.,
etc. features that add to code bloat, I think a soft-stretch function would be
a nice (and not too intrusive) addition to SDL.On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, you wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 11:25:26AM +0100, the boisterous Mattias Engdeg?rd wrote:
right now it’s mostly used for the software video overlay functions and
not officially supported, so it can disappear or change semantics without
prior notice. keep this in mind and you may use it anyway
I think SDL should include such function “officially”. Isn’t SDL here to
move away architeture dependency and “boring” allways needed tasks for
graphic programming (8,16,24,… surface stuff; video initializing and so on)?
It’s right that eg. sprite stuff should handle the application. But what
about scaling, rotating and such common tasks? I think SDL is the right
place for such functions, because there’s lot of architecture dependency
if you want it fast (I think of assembly). And in this case, this stretch
function is needed inside SDL, why not offer it to the “outside” world?
Sam “Criswell” Hart <@Sam_Hart> AIM, Yahoo!:
Homepage: < http://www.geekcomix.com/snh/ >
PGP Info: < http://www.geekcomix.com/snh/contact/ >
Advogato: < http://advogato.org/person/criswell/ >