Open Raffaello opened 4 years ago
it makes sense to considering at
if it is rendered on screen?
or have a flag to tell if it is rendered? [that bit was hidden intentionally] => so might have sense to return true/false if rendered like renderedAt
method
or sibling method to return IFF is rendered ?
so this is not a bug, but an intended feature, it is missing to retrieve the information if it is rendered or not and that is an enhancement
there could be a side function bool isRenderedAt(...)
that return that missing bit and with both function combined, should give enough information to understand, for sure is a missing rendering phase... anyway, at the same time, it is supposed to run within a main loop and render every frame...
so still the original at
method is ok.
returning a non rendered char on the screen is not really useful as the screen is "just hidden" and are pixels not chars... so again the double buffer situation of not yet rendered is normal and acceptable.
still the isRenderAt can be implemented, but i do not see really too many use cases... more a debugging/control function that a "feature"...
anyway... not hurting
I discover this behaviour that was considered right at the beginning, but i am reconsidering it:
if the terminal char is not rendered the
at
method will return anyway the char present there.Should not return the char there IFF the char has been rendered?
especially because it might have inconsistency in the interpretation.
but
at
was designed to read the VgaTerminal, not the "rendered char on screen" .this might require another method or something related.... do not know now