I have this annoying issue where the game will open on the wrong monitor
in fullscreen mode, because that monitor is considered to be display 0,
whereas the primary monitor I want is display 1.
To mitigate this somewhat, the game now stores the display index that it
was closed on, and will save it to settings. Then the next time the game
opens, it will open on that display index. This should work pretty well
as long as you aren't changing your monitor setup constantly.
Of course, none of this applies if your window manager is busted. For
example, on GNOME Wayland, which is what I use, in windowed mode the
game will always open on the monitor the cursor is on, and it won't even
be centered in the monitor. But it works fine if I use XWayland via
SDL_VIDEODRIVER=x11.
This enum is to just make each mode be readable, instead of mysterious
0/1/2 values. It's not a strictly-typed enum because we still have to
serialize it as ints in the XML, but it's better than just leaving them
as ints.
This also adds a NUM_SCALING_MODES enum, so we don't have to hardcode
that 3 when cycling scaling modes anymore.
This includes:
- Removing the constructor in favor of actually being able to see that
there's an actual function called being made initializing the struct
- Removing the use of a reference in Screen::init() in favor of using a
pointer
- Adding the struct qualifier everywhere (it's not much typing),
although technically you could typedef it in C, but I'd rather much
not typedef just to remove a tag qualifier
It's been long overdue that this variable be named properly. 2.2 added
integer scaling mode (thanks Ethan), 2.3 renamed it to scaling mode. Now
2.4 will properly call it what it is so people won't be confused by it.
The ScreenSettings struct member is renamed from stretch to scalingMode
along with the Screen class member being renamed, as well as the
toggleStretchMode function being renamed to toggleScalingMode as well.
Unfortunately, due to compatibility, we can't change the <stretch> XML
tag.
Apparently in C, if you have `void test();`, it's completely okay to do
`test(2);`. The function will take in the argument, but just discard it
and throw it away. It's like a trash can, and a rude one at that. If you
declare it like `void test(void);`, this is prevented.
This is not a problem in C++ - doing `void test();` and `test(2);` is
guaranteed to result in a compile error (this also means that right now,
at least in all `.cpp` files, nobody is ever calling a void parameter
function with arguments and having their arguments be thrown away).
However, we may not be using C++ in the future, so I just want to lay
down the precedent that if a function takes in no arguments, you must
explicitly declare it as such.
I would've added `-Wstrict-prototypes`, but it produces an annoying
warning message saying it doesn't work in C++ mode if you're compiling
in C++ mode. So it can be added later.
