Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re:  Information on Amiga Technical Reference Seri
Message-ID: <1991Jun17.144051.3418@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX
References: <VINSCI.91Jun14003452@nic.nic.funet.fi> <22455@cbmvax.commodore.com> <mykes.3594@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1991 14:40:51 GMT

In article <mykes.3594@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> Consider the case where you want to do BltMaskBitMapBitMap(), which the OS
> doesn't have.  You could roll your own by taking the source to
> BltMaskBitMapRastPort()  (that is a mouthful :) and hack out what you don't
> want.

And if enough people do that sort of thing it blocks Commodore from usefully
changing the blitter interface. It might be arguable that in this particular
case it's too late, but what about all the rest of the code out there?

Why not just fake up a RastPort and call BltMaskBitMapRastPort? I agree, a
BltMaskBitMapBitMap would be more general, but instead of inventing new tools
why not try figuring out to use the ones you have?

> The apps that use routines done this way won't at all break under future
> OS revs or anything.

How do you know?
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'   <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
                   'U`    "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
