RE: [cc65] tgi_sprite and friends

> From: owner-cc65@musoftware.de [mailto:owner-cc65@musoftware.de] On Behalf
> Of Oliver Schmidt

<snip>

> Anyway - now there's no tgi_put...() in the TGI API so I'd go for
> tgi_set...() - which leaves us the option to possibly later add a
> tgi_get...().
> 
> So the last question is tgi_setimage() (closer to the BGI API) or
> tgi_setbitmap() (more intuitive ?).
> 
> I personally would go for tgi_setbitmap() as tgi_setimage() seems to
> imply some "advanced abstration" we don't want to offer. Rather ther
> opposite: I.e. hardware-sprites (which might be classified as images
> too) are not covered by the function.

tgi_setbitmap() just seems counter-inituitive for what the function is going
to do: draw some data to the screen.

I prefer tgi_blit or tgi_bitblt personally.  I agree we should avoid the
term "sprite", as that means different things on different platforms
(although some platforms may just use their sprite hardware to implement
tgi_blit-the lynx probably.)

My $0.01. :)



----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.