On, Thu Feb 12, 2009, Rene Dudfield wrote: > eg. sdl_pyg libSDL_pygXXX and pyg_XXX ? I gave that a second thought - SDL_pyg could be pronounced 'SDL_pig'. Do we really want that? :-D [...] > I think we should wait until after pygame 1.9 is released before > moving it over to use SDL_pyg? Was that your idea too? Or start > right away? I think I'd like to wait until after... too keep the 1.9 A small addition to my other answer: I more thought of keeping two codebases, one within pygame, one for the SDL C library (as written in my response to Petes mail). Regarding pygame 1.9 I cannot give you any advice. As you already might have seen, my focus is to stabilise pgreloaded and make it ready for an alpha release :-). > release complexity down (it already has *heaps* of changes). But > maybe we can start right away? I would not recommend that. Some internals changed within the code used by pgreloaded (and thus the SDL C library). The good news are that the API is pretty clean now, the bad however that it might behave a bit differently in some cases. This needs thorough testing. Reegards Marcus
Attachment:
pgp4neK4FstPB.pgp
Description: PGP signature