Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/06/29/10:00:40
sproctor AT ccs DOT neu DOT edu (Sean Proctor) wrote in
<mvbllska0qcuhbt0iau00jdn2vp078mon7 AT 4ax DOT com>:
>ummm, you're just wrong...
>
>struct blah
>{
> int whatever;
>};
>
>typedef struct blah blub;
>typedef struct *blah blab;
>
>blub *a[60];
>blah b[60];
>
>oh look... they're the same... huh... imagine the irony... one type...
>and a pointer to a different type... *and they're the same thing*!!!
>Don't hate me, I'm just in a bad mood.
however, as the user of allegro's api (or your blah-blub api), i shouldn't
know or care about the actual implementation of these data structures. as far
as the user of your api is concerned, blub and blab are separate types, and a
pointer to blub is conceptually different than an element of type blah.
as for BITMAP and PALLETE, all one should care about is the API through which
you access these structures (that is the whole point why you are provided with
a BITMAP data type rather than an array of int.) further, BITMAP and PALLETE
are logically separate concepts regardless of any affinity that might exist
between their underlying implementations.
you'll have fewer problems if you keep these in mind.
Sinan.
--
--------------------------------
A. Sinan Unur
http://www.unur.com/
- Raw text -