| Summary: | SDLK_SCANCODE_MASK value conflict: 0x80000000 in docs while 0x40000000 in code | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | SDL | Reporter: | Ulion <ulion2002> |
| Component: | events | Assignee: | (disabled) Jørgen Tjernø <jorgen> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | Sam Lantinga <slouken> |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P1 | CC: | jorgen, philipp.wiesemann |
| Version: | HG 2.0 | Keywords: | target-2.0.0 |
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
|
Description
Ulion
2013-03-30 22:03:46 UTC
SDLK_SCANCODE_MASK is (1<<30) in SDL_keycode.h. So the actual value is the same in docs and code (no conflict if only using the preprocessor constant). It seems the hexadecimal representation in the wiki is wrong. Maybe it would be useful to only state SDLK_SCANCODE_MASK in the wiki because that is the token that should be used anyway. On the other hand nearly the whole table could be removed from the wiki then because the values are either wrong or not needed because we have symbolic constants in C and it would be only useful for some debugging. (Sorry if you get a lot of copies of this email, we're touching dozens of bug reports right now.) Tagging a bunch of bugs as target-2.0.0, Priority 1. This means we're in the final stretch for an official SDL 2.0.0 release! These are the bugs we really want to fix before shipping if humanly possible. That being said, we don't promise to fix them because of this tag, we just want to make sure we don't forget to deal with them before we bless a final 2.0.0 release, and generally be organized about what we're aiming to ship. Hopefully you'll hear more about this bug soon. If you have more information (including "this got fixed at some point, nevermind"), we would love to have you come add more information to the bug report when you have a moment. Thanks! --ryan. Updated the docs on the wiki to use the same constant as in the code (0x40000000). Thanks! :) |