Patrick Elliott wrote:
> and so that someone using a *new* SDL could be warned 
> that they forgot to actually render anything. 

Having used systems where the name under which they're invoked makes a 
difference between whether the interpret enters a GUI event loop or runs 
as a straight-through execution and exits, I can say that it's probably 
a mistake to do that. The maintainers of the interpreter feel the same 
way, and moved the event loop into a loadable package with the 
requirement you start it when you're ready.

Having said that, perhaps a command-line option that says "No, really, 
render whatever you have when you get to the end of the input" would be 
a good idea, for people who are building a library or something and want 
to see how it looks during development.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message