Re: [MiNT] New AES keyboard messages

[Lonny Pursell <atari@bright.net>]

on 4/1/2005 7:46 PM, Evan K. Langlois wrote:

> You don't see a problem if there are more APIs than developers or users?  or
> at least a really high ratio.  How bloated is an application if they have to
> check for every extension and then provide different code paths for each
> variance?   I just can't see having two different versions of evnt_multi()
> just so the key-up/key-down extension can support 65535 scan codes instead of
> 256.  I don't see any possibility of Atari apps needing keyboards with more
> than 256 keys any time in the near future.  I definately think such an
> extension would be more likely to be used by application developers if they
> didn't have to dump evnt_multi() for a new version.
>
> Honestly, the whole idea of throwing out existing APIs and conventions for
> hardware that doesn't even exist, especially when the userbase and developer
> base is already highly fragmented so as to make the use of such new calls
> questionable .. just seems ... crazy!  If something works, don't fix it.

No one suggested throwing old API's out.  Now you are going yet another
direction entirely.  Throwing out old calls would fragment it even more.  Do
you read anything you type??
 
> Being able to detect keys being held down and ignore key repeat and stuff like
> that, seems like a useful feature if it can be done without breaking current
> APIs and conventions.  I don't see a need to break existing conventions and
> APIs when they work fine, and will continue to do so for the forseeable
> future.  I'm way against arbitrarily increasing the size of the scancode
> parameter to 16 bits.  Its 8 bits now, and should stay that way.
> 
>> 
>> If someone wants to spend the time... they will.  Remember, it's their time,
>> not yours.
> 
> 
> Oh wow!  I shouldn't care about the developers?   Just screw them, huh?  Who
> else is the OS API for?

Where in the hell do you get that out of my statement?  I'm dealing with an
idiot.  Nice turn around there, you are the one suggesting if the hardware
ain't there it's a waste of time.  Go back and re-read your own post.  I am
FOR advancement, but you don't seem to get it.

I totally agree with Howard at this point.

Also do you need to post that twice and in HTML?  geesh

-- 
Lonny Pursell    http://www.bright.net/~gfabasic/