Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Thu 05/07/2012 00:13:26This is a question of version planning. In my opinion it all depends on what do you expect of future versions of AGS. So far I see people here wanted to have a development branch which is fully backwards-compatible with previous releases of AGS, then, after some time, cut the ties and develop something totally new. At least that is what I heard (read).
Is the backwards compatibility really something that needs to be held onto when it's a change this drastic and important for AGS? I'd personally ditch it.
Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Thu 05/07/2012 00:13:26What's wrong with the function if it simply exists?
There are tons of those non-OO functions weshouldmust ultimately remove.
It is pretty possible to hide the obsolete functions: switch them on and off depending on the compiler setting.
EDIT: Wait... I missed the word "ultimately".
Well, if we are speaking of some future version with no backwards compatibility, then it's true
