Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:
> I feel a bit queasy about the syntax though, it doesn't
> look right for SDL (or most other languages I know).

I guess that's mainly because it is an unconventional approach.

> #writeb(fOut, "int16be", someVal1, someVal2)
>
> -> my favourite

Not mine, because it would have introduced a whole different branch for the
parser.

> #write(fOut, "int16be", someVal1, someVal2)

That's plain crap, and I guess you know that ;)

> #writeb(fOut, "%hu%hu", someVal1, someVal2) or

Ugly to parse.

> #write(fOut, (int16be) someVal1, (int16be) someVal2)
>
> -> with active suspension of disbelief you can pretend
>     it's a cast to select from overloaded #write's ;)

Why the hassle of adding the parentheses? It would happen to make parsing quite
cumbersome, at no real benefit - aside from looking more like Java or the like.

*This* is something that would go against all conventions of SDL: There is not a
single keyword anywhere else that needs to be enclosed in parentheses.

Lining up keywords separated only by spaces is not uncommon for POV.


So, what's the benefit of any of those proposals?

I can name one benefit of the (unparenthesized) prefix approach I went for: It
was darn easy to integrate. No hassle with additional state variables. No
duplication of huge code blocks.

And I think it's as good as any other approach, regarding usability.


I think all your proposals are tinted by the way other languages do it. But POV
SDL is POV SDL and nothing else.


> Also, maybe it should be uint instead of int in case
> you wish to add signed integers later?

Happened already.

Post a reply to this message