Re: Parameter types of image_surface API
Bryce Harrington <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.cairo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:30:32AM +0200, David Weiß wrote: > Hey, > > I'm wondering whether there's any reason for the image_surface API to use signed datatypes for width/height parameters? > I think unsigned int makes more sense. > Also, none of the parameters is defined as const. E.g. and especially for getters like cairo_image_surface_get_width() it's IMHO better style (and semantics) to pass const cairo_surface_t * const instead of just cairo_surface_t *. > Is there a technical reason not to do so? Good questions. Might be merely historical reasons + need for backwards compatibility, but I don't actually know. Carl would probably be the one to ask. Bryce -- cairo mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cairographics.org/mailman/listinfo/cairo