From:	"Ole Laursen" <ole_laursen AT hardworking DOT dk>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References:	<3 DOT 0 DOT 32 DOT 19990801181614 DOT 007b9130 AT mail DOT colba DOT net> <37a5e4a8 AT news DOT ismi DOT net>
Subject:	Re: BITMAP pointers w/ Allegro.
Lines:	22
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID:	<Z3np3.154$z4.3489@news020.image.dk>
Date:	Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:16:08 +0200
NNTP-Posting-Host:	212.54.77.135
X-Complaints-To:	news-abuse AT wol DOT dk
X-Trace:	news020.image.dk 933625209 212.54.77.135 (Mon, 02 Aug 1999 22:20:09 MET DST)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Mon, 02 Aug 1999 22:20:09 MET DST
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> I've got a question about that,  I was asking around on IRC about this
> problem and they said that its improper programming practice (wow that's
> hard to say) to have the return value of a function be a pointer.  They
said
> that it violates the law of encapsulation.  But I've noticed that the
> Allegro library does it all the time with BITMAP structures,  is that
bad?

You (or should I say they) just can't generalize like that - it depends on
the situation. In Allegro's case I can't remember any of such function
right now, other than load_bmp and create_bitmap which can be thought of as
a constructor (thus it has to be like that, and it is good).

And that it should violate the law of encapsulation - hmm... I think they
were thinking about something slightly different, maybe.


--
Ole Laursen - http://sunsite.auc.dk/olau/
Row, row, row your boat, gently down the streeaam (gee!)

- Raw text -