From airbaggins at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 13:40:45 2008 From: airbaggins at gmail.com (William Robinson) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:40:45 +0000 Subject: [cl-opengl-devel] cl-glfw 0.3 with cl-opengl interoperability Message-ID: <478771DD.9010607@gmail.com> Hi. Just a little note to say I've released cl-glfw-0.3 which now is able to work with cl-opengl (as well as with its own bindings, cl-glfw-opengl). So, maybe this option apart from SDL (with its custom application entry-point issues) and GLUT (for when you get stuck in a main loop) will be appealing to some. The only caveat, at the moment, is that libglfw mostly only comes as statically linked libraries by default. We have been petitioning the glfw maintainers for dynamically loaded libraries by default to ease this problem somewhat. Thanks for listening Ciao bill From luismbo at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 16:20:54 2008 From: luismbo at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lu=EDs_Oliveira?=) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:20:54 +0000 Subject: [cl-opengl-devel] cl-glfw 0.3 with cl-opengl interoperability In-Reply-To: <478771DD.9010607@gmail.com> References: <478771DD.9010607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <391f79580801110820j4e345b1fr8e27d2bda2e8ec20@mail.gmail.com> Hello, On 11/01/2008, William Robinson wrote: > Just a little note to say I've released cl-glfw-0.3 which now is able to > work with cl-opengl (as well as with its own bindings, cl-glfw-opengl). In what ways does cl-glfw-opengl differ from cl-opengl? > So, maybe this option apart from SDL (with its custom application > entry-point issues) and GLUT (for when you get stuck in a main loop) > will be appealing to some. This is very interesting. GLUT sucks a lot. Hopefully, GLFW's error handling is better and doesn't call exit() on errors like failing to open an X display, as GLUT does. It does seem very GLUT-like though. -- Lu?s Oliveira http://student.dei.uc.pt/~lmoliv/ From airbaggins at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 17:30:02 2008 From: airbaggins at gmail.com (William Robinson) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:30:02 +0000 Subject: [cl-opengl-devel] cl-glfw 0.3 with cl-opengl interoperability Message-ID: <4787A79A.2040703@gmail.com> Lu?s Oliveira wrote: > In what ways does cl-glfw-opengl differ from cl-opengl? Well, it's more in-line with the cl-sdl style of opengl binding. As, initially I wrote my own OpenGL bindings because I was having difficulties with cl-sdl and lispbuilder on Mac OS X (and was generally averse to GLUT). So the main differences are: * You specify the function's ?command suffix?, eg. (gl:color-3f 0 0.5 1) instead of just (gl:color 0 0.5 1), * The GL?enum? constants aren't defined in one large cffi defcenum, but they are just defined as constants, eg. use (gl:clear gl:+color-buffer-bit+) instead of (gl:clear :color-buffer-bit). * All of the OpenGL API and extensions are automatically generated from opengl.org's spec files. Though I have learned (after I wrote the generators) that there is a branch of cl-opengl with more dynamically generated stuff from spec files. * Each registered extension is a separate asd file (this includes the OpenGL and GLU versions, as well) * Instead of focusing on too many individual cases of lispification, I have striven to make (where possible according to the spec files) Lisp sequences transparent as OpenGL functions' array-pointer parameters (though this does require some extra allocation. of course). On the whole, I'd say the main difference is that cl-glfw-opengl is more OpenGLy and cl-opengl is more Lispy in style. Ciao bill, who forgot to CC the list first time. From david at lichteblau.com Sun Jan 20 16:25:42 2008 From: david at lichteblau.com (David Lichteblau) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:25:42 +0100 Subject: [cl-opengl-devel] cl-opengl and clx naming conflict Message-ID: <20080120162542.GE30892@radon> Hi, I was hoping to add cl-opengl as a main project to clbuild. Unfortunately cl-opengl and CLX both define a package called GL, so we cannot dump a core file including them. Is there a chance that cl-opengl might switch to a more specific package name? d. From luismbo at gmail.com Mon Jan 21 17:32:04 2008 From: luismbo at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lu=EDs_Oliveira?=) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:32:04 +0000 Subject: [cl-opengl-devel] cl-opengl and clx naming conflict In-Reply-To: <20080120162542.GE30892@radon> References: <20080120162542.GE30892@radon> Message-ID: <391f79580801210932x180e2ad6va2af35bf8d9a3d5f@mail.gmail.com> On 20/01/2008, David Lichteblau wrote: > Unfortunately cl-opengl and CLX both define a package called GL, so we > cannot dump a core file including them. > > Is there a chance that cl-opengl might switch to a more specific package > name? That sucks. We need namespaces for packages. I'd argue that CLX could more easily use GLX as the package name. Any luck on that side? -- Lu?s Oliveira http://student.dei.uc.pt/~lmoliv/ From david at lichteblau.com Mon Jan 21 18:15:59 2008 From: david at lichteblau.com (David Lichteblau) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:15:59 +0100 Subject: [cl-opengl-devel] cl-opengl and clx naming conflict In-Reply-To: <391f79580801210932x180e2ad6va2af35bf8d9a3d5f@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080120162542.GE30892@radon> <391f79580801210932x180e2ad6va2af35bf8d9a3d5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080121181558.GF30892@radon> Quoting Lu?s Oliveira (luismbo at gmail.com): > That sucks. We need namespaces for packages. I'd argue that CLX could > more easily use GLX as the package name. Any luck on that side? If I understood Christophe Rhodes right, he would be prepared to accept a patch renaming CLX's GL package. (Not sure about GLX, since there are already two distinct packages in CLX called GL and GLX.) d.