[rcore_desktop_sdl] fix: handle monitor ID correctly on SDL3 #5290
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
SDL3 uses ID when dealing with monitors, unlike SDL2 which uses Index for the same thing. This problem was already fixed in multiple places by use of preprocessor branches, so I did the very same thing. Please, notice that this is a pretty bad solution to this problem, and I only did it to keep it consistent with the rest of the code. The more about why it's not correct is mentioned here: raysan5#5256 (comment) Hopefully, someone will refactor it someday :) Fixes: raysan5#5256
Owner
|
@sleeptightAnsiC thanks for the review! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
SDL3 uses ID when dealing with monitors, unlike SDL2 which uses Index for the same thing. This problem was already fixed in multiple places by use of preprocessor branches, so I did the very same thing elsewhere.
Please, notice that this is a pretty bad solution to this problem, and I only did it to keep it consistent with the rest of the code. The more about why it's not correct is mentioned here #5256 (comment) and here #5256 (comment) . Hopefully, someone will refactor it someday :)
Fixes: #5256