-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add getter for sf::Texture::m_pixelsFlipped
#3283
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
20d2cda
to
4ca8dd1
Compare
/// \return `true` if pixels are flipped, otherwise `false` | ||
/// | ||
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// | ||
[[nodiscard]] bool getPixelsFlipped() const; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the name is confusing, when I read it I thought it returns a pointer to the pixels flipped but no this is just a boolean getter I think an isPixelsFlipped or something else is better name
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
isPixelsFlipped
or maybe arePixelsFlipped
? I agree that a better name probably exists.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about:
m_isYFlipped
bool isYFlipped()
or something like that?
Is there a need / actual use case to expose this? Or are we exposing an implementation detail? |
See the linked issue and issue in imgui-sfml |
Completely missed that, my bad. Will take a look at it. |
Closes #1770
There is reason to believe that larger rendering changes in SFML 4 will render (pun intended) this API moot and thus it will get removed. Nevertheless I think there is value in providing this feature even if this feature only lives for as long as SFML 3. It's trivial to write, test, and maintain and I see no reason why this would limit any implementation changes we wish to make in the v3 release cycle.