Nick Gammon said:
Twisol said:
Yeah, that wouldn't be a drop-in change. I suspect using DirectX instead of GDI might help a bit, though I don't know the details. If I remember right, though, the GDI API is a bit lacking in places, forcing you to use cumbersome per-pixel approaches.
Well I don't know how well it would work with Wine, or the Windows emulators under Mac, etc.
Just fine, most likely. Wine supports several rather graphically-intense games. Anyways, this is getting off-topic.
Nick Gammon said: I mean, for showing the output of what is purely a text-based MUD (and MUDs are text, right?) then why do you really need to have alpha-channel fading in of miniwindows?
I'm not thinking of it so much for the end result, but for compositing windows together (using WindowImageFromWindow and such).
Nick Gammon said: Look, I have seen plenty of APIs that handle every conceivable situation, but are unusably complex.
Give me a concrete example of where you need to use transparency, need to change the background colour, and need to keep hotspots (and not just for some generic library, but an actual real-world example) and I will be interested, maybe.
It's not about using them at the same time. I'm just writing an object-based wrapper API for miniwindows, and I'm trying to make it simple. The problem I have is that the MUSHclient API right now handles too many things within singular functions. This bug (now feature-request) stems primarily from me trying to make my Window.new function smaller, ideally to Window.new(width,height). Everything else can be managed afterwards.
Nick Gammon said: Remember all this support is done for free.
Ouch. It's a one-liner change, surely this can't be about the effort involved to do this. Did I say something wrong?
I'm not doing any plugins right now. In fact, I haven't for months. All my MUSHclient time has been focused on libraries (some of which worked out, some of which didn't), and the source code. I don't, strictly speaking, need to work on this window API. But I want to make miniwindows approachable.
Is it any skin off my back if this isn't done? No. Unlike the sensi-hotspot thread, I'm not working on anything that would require this. It would just make my API that much cleaner.
Can I write this myself into the client? Sure I could. Is that useful to everyone else? Not really. I need to discuss it here, and if we decide it's good, then I have no problem providing a patch. But after all the other effort I've put into my fork - don't get me wrong, I understand your reasons - I'm not going to add any more new features until I know what their future will be.
Worstje said: In Twisol's defence... I don't think his lowering his expectations has anything to do with you adding new features/functions, on the contrary. It has everything to do however with his failed former attempt that was a bit too idealistic in nature, thus making it hard to be finished in anything other than a disappointment.
So this time, he has set realistic expectations, and far more likely to be smiling when he finishes work on it. :)
(Why do I know all this? Been there, done that. That's all I'll say on the subject.)
You nailed it, Worstje. Thanks!
Nick, just to clarify, the recent functions actually spurred me to try again. I was (and am) sure that the new functions would let me simplify my API even more (WindowMoveHotspot for the WIN). |