Add tint color variants for all image functions #66
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is a port of the code I wrote for the pull request for the C# version which, along with a C#-specific bug fix, adds tint color variants for all image functions.
However, there is a difference between the two versions. Since the C++ version cannot use operator overloading for the rlImGui functions (due to C externs), I created new functions with the suffix "Tint" added to them, as well as a function for image and image button drawing that has the suffix "Pro" that has position, source rect, and tint color parameters. I added the "Pro" functions because I also added a function for drawing ImageButtons with a defined source rectangle, as I did with the C# version.
But I'm not sure if I should port these new function names to C#, since I only did it because the C++ code could not use operator overloading. I would prefer keeping the C# names the same, since I find function overloading more convenient, but that would mean that the C++ and C# interfaces are different.