From brad.beveridge at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 15:47:25 2007 From: brad.beveridge at gmail.com (Brad Beveridge) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:47:25 -0700 Subject: [cl-opengl-devel] How are functions ordered? Message-ID: I would like to add some functions to cl-opengl, but I figure that if I am going to send a patch in it might as well be in the style of the current code. It looks like functions are have been added in the order they appear in a book or something? I have probably missed something obvious, but which book do the chapters refer to? Cheers, Brad From charliemac+cl-opengl at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 01:37:33 2007 From: charliemac+cl-opengl at gmail.com (Charlie McMackin) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:37:33 +0900 Subject: [cl-opengl-devel] How are functions ordered? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6e831e4e0706221837o720375e1w55ca337e1ea9703f@mail.gmail.com> Hi Brad, The chapters refer to the OpenGL specification. Download the latest from opengl.org. Make sure you are using the cl-opengl-thomas branch as well. Development has kind of forked off on to that while waiting (?) for a boat load of patches to be applied to CFFI... as near as I can tell at least. If you aren't using it already, the thomas branch does a lot of automatic bindings along with other goodies. Searching c.l.l or the gmane archives of this list will get you the link....I don't have it at the moment. I tack on my shameless plea to the maintainers to update the main darcs branch or relay a status update.... pretty please. From brad.beveridge at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 00:57:14 2007 From: brad.beveridge at gmail.com (Brad Beveridge) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:57:14 -0700 Subject: [cl-opengl-devel] How are functions ordered? In-Reply-To: <6e831e4e0706221837o720375e1w55ca337e1ea9703f@mail.gmail.com> References: <6e831e4e0706221837o720375e1w55ca337e1ea9703f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 22/06/07, Charlie McMackin wrote: > Hi Brad, > > The chapters refer to the OpenGL specification. Download the latest > from opengl.org. Make sure you are using the cl-opengl-thomas branch > as well. Development has kind of forked off on to that while waiting > (?) for a boat load of patches to be applied to CFFI... as near as I > can tell at least. If you aren't using it already, the thomas branch > does a lot of automatic bindings along with other goodies. Searching > c.l.l or the gmane archives of this list will get you the link....I > don't have it at the moment. > > I tack on my shameless plea to the maintainers to update the main > darcs branch or relay a status update.... pretty please. Thanks Charlie, much appreciated. I can see now where I need to add my functions. I am using the standard Darcs tree at http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cl-opengl/darcs/cl-opengl/ I've found the branch message here http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.cl-opengl.devel/91 I take it that cffi-newtypes is also an experimental cffi branch? Any thoughts as to which I should move to? Any notes on what the thomas branch offers me? Cheers Brad From luismbo at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 18:01:37 2007 From: luismbo at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lu=EDs_Oliveira?=) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:01:37 +0100 Subject: [cl-opengl-devel] How are functions ordered? In-Reply-To: References: <6e831e4e0706221837o720375e1w55ca337e1ea9703f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <391f79580706251101l2d2f83b8sbc62b882da7a91d9@mail.gmail.com> On 25/06/07, Brad Beveridge wrote: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.cl-opengl.devel/91 > I take it that cffi-newtypes is also an experimental cffi branch? Any > thoughts as to which I should move to? cffi-newtypes has since been merged with the main cffi darcs. > Any notes on what the thomas branch offers me? Have a look at the change log. I don't have much time to work on cl-opengl at the moment, but if there's consensus, we should pull that branch's stuff into the main branch. -- Lu?s Oliveira http://student.dei.uc.pt/~lmoliv/ From brad.beveridge at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 13:46:09 2007 From: brad.beveridge at gmail.com (Brad Beveridge) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 06:46:09 -0700 Subject: [cl-opengl-devel] Approach taken by cl-opengl for binding creation Message-ID: Hi guys. I really like the cl-opengl bindings, well done! Would somebody care to give a few lines describing how they were made & the underlying philosophy? From reading the code it looks totally hand tailored, apart from the automatic enum generation. Is this an accurate statement? Are the bindings so nice simply because a lot of care was taken? I plan to create bindings for nVidia's Cg API, which I'll post here at some stage in the future. Cheers Brad From charliemac+cl-opengl at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 14:59:59 2007 From: charliemac+cl-opengl at gmail.com (Charlie McMackin) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:59:59 +0900 Subject: [cl-opengl-devel] RFC: Merging thomas branch into main Message-ID: <6e831e4e0706260759k6c22e8e9n86260f74aa97da72@mail.gmail.com> Since Lu?s hinted in a previous message to the list that consensus need be sought on whether or not to merge cl-opengl-thomas in to the main tree, I thought I would get the ball rolling for when he is free to do so (or not as the case may warrant). I offer these points as pro-merge: - With CFFI-new-types merged into CFFI-main, the main cl-opengl repo probably won't compile for anyone starting out using 'darcs get' or (require :cl-opengl) and will break for anyone using 'darcs pull' - Most recent patches have been requested to patch against the thomas branch - As far as I know, there's been no regression in the GL functionality area merge cons: - In it's current state, thomas will break some cl-glut-examples demos Anyone concluding differently or similarly? Comments? Charlie McMackin From luismbo at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 16:08:23 2007 From: luismbo at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lu=EDs_Oliveira?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:08:23 +0100 Subject: [cl-opengl-devel] Approach taken by cl-opengl for binding creation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <391f79580706280908v2df7a65csff4acf97372fb303@mail.gmail.com> On 26/06/07, Brad Beveridge wrote: > Hi guys. I really like the cl-opengl bindings, well done! Would > somebody care to give a few lines describing how they were made & the > underlying philosophy? From reading the code it looks totally hand > tailored, apart from the automatic enum generation. The cl-opengl-thomas branch also generates the (low-level) bindings from the spec. > Is this an accurate statement? Are the bindings so nice simply > because a lot of care was taken? Yes, I believe a lot of care was taken. The lispy feel is there because the automatically generated bindings aren't exported directly. -- Lu?s Oliveira http://student.dei.uc.pt/~lmoliv/