Re: [MiNT] WCOWORK vs WINDOM for components

[evan@coolrunningconcepts.com]

Quoting Lonny Pursell <atari@bright.net>:

> This is a very simple concept.  If you suspect any one of your imported
> modules cannot deal with WCO, then by all means do not turn the WCO mode on.
> I have to question the validity of that question even.  If you are making a
> program and you don't fully know what all the individual parts are capable
> of or doing, hmm should you be coding in the first place?

This is not a good design.   Thats not how safe modular programming 
works.  The
whole point is that you shouldn't know or care the implementation details
within the library.  You just use the functions and API it provides.

Why should it always come back to not turning on WCOWORK.  If someone wants to
use it, and it can be done safely why not make it work?

> It's my understanding that those calls are there for extreme reasons.  Like
> if someone still wanted to force the windows out x/y to an even pixel
> coordinate.  Yes they seem to defeat the purpose and if someone is going to
> code in that manner I would suggest not turning on the WCO mode in the first
> place.  You are only going to fully benefit from WCO if you stick to working
> exclusively with WORK area coordinates.

Again, I don't understand the all or nothing approach and the purpose of
defeating modular programming.  Perhaps if you could explain what benefit will
be lost and what features I gain that will not possible if both APIs are
available I will better understand.

-- Evan