Re: New AL 1.1 Spec and Beta Windows Implementation

Alexandre Mah wrote:

> Well, we do have the OpenAL 1.0 specification on our side, which I 
> think counts for a lot.
Not really.  Most people agree that the 1.0 spec was broken w.r.t. Doppler.

> I can understand that the Windows implementors don't want to break 
> compatibility with their (incorrect) Windows OpenAL 1.0 implementation.
> So here is one possible compromise.
> How about we specify the default value for AL_SPEED_OF_SOUND as 
> "undefined" rather than 343.3?
I think it's much better to have a standard.  The lack of a 
clearly-defined standard is what caused this mess in the first place.  
It's not an unchangeable constant (it's not even a constant, in fact, 
it's a variable), and there's nothing that says you have to use the 
default value.  If you want to use 1.0 for your speed of sound, go ahead!
<snip>

> 3.  This will still allow a future version of OpenAL to specify an 
> explicit default value for AL_SPEED_OF_SOUND, at a future point in 
> time when no OpenAL programmer is relying on any default value for 
> AL_SPEED_OF_SOUND (since the default is specified as "undefined").
Who says nobody is going to go back and play Jedi Knight II some time in 
the future?  You'd still be breaking backward compatibility.  If we're 
not doing it now, why would we do it later?
I think what we've got is as good as it's going to get.

--

--"J"

"I'm a castaway stranded in a desolate land,
I can see the footprints in the virtual sand."
        --Neil Peart