On Sep 6, 2010, at 1:57 PM, han wrote:
So the question is: Do you agree that Graphics.Rendering.OpenGL
actually should have been Graphics.OpenGL (or just OpenGL) for
wieldiness? If you don't, what is your reason? I would like to know.
Often, when this topic comes up, someone claims that
On 6 September 2010 21:57, han e...@xtendo.org wrote:
So the question is: Do you agree that Graphics.Rendering.OpenGL actually
should have been Graphics.OpenGL (or just OpenGL) for wieldiness?
I think Graphics.OpenGL would have sufficed, unless there was
sufficient reason to want to group it
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2010 21:57, han e...@xtendo.org wrote:
So the question is: Do you agree that Graphics.Rendering.OpenGL actually
should have been Graphics.OpenGL (or just OpenGL) for wieldiness?
I think
creswick:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2010 21:57, han e...@xtendo.org wrote:
So the question is: Do you agree that Graphics.Rendering.OpenGL actually
should have been Graphics.OpenGL (or just OpenGL) for wieldiness?
I think there should be Graphics.Drawing (along with Graphics.Rendering) and
many graphics packages should go into it.
So
* Graphics.Rendering will contain more technical and rendering-engine-level
packages (OpenGL, GD, ...)
* while Graphics.Drawing will be for higher-level and user-friendlier
On 6 September 2010 10:09, han e...@xtendo.org wrote:
I think there should be Graphics.Drawing (along with Graphics.Rendering) and
many graphics packages should go into it.
Why?
So
* Graphics.Rendering will contain more technical and rendering-engine-level
packages (OpenGL, GD, ...)
*
