Oliver Markovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neat! This would cut out a lot of the annoying (float ...) throughout
> the wrappers. It seems to me like a lot of things that I used to do by
> hand are made obsolete by CFFI advancements. Maybe we won't
> need any wrappers at all soon? :)
The less wrappers the better. :-)
> BTW, can I request a FOREIGN-ENUM-P?
Sure. That sounds useful. I'll try to come up with some sort of more
generic foreign-typep first and if I fail, I'll add foreign-enum-p.
> The reason for keeping the wrapper functions separate from the FFI
> definitions is that I thought it might be possible to also support
> FFI-less
> GLX without having to change any of the wrappers. Suppose there are
> two backends, one for the C-based library and one for GLX through CLX,
> then a call to %glFoo could be either a foreign call or some Lisp
> function
> which sends out the appropriate GLX request to the server, depending
> on which backend is loaded.
What about something like this:
(defmacro defglfun (name rettype &body args)
`(defcfun ,name ,rettype ,@args))
Then a CLX backend would implement this macro (which would probably be
slightly more complicated, I'm sure). I have no idea if this makes sense
as I've never touched CLX.
Again, if it does make sense, I volunteer to do the gruntwork. :-)
--
Luís Oliveira
luismbo (@) gmail (.) com
Equipa Portuguesa do Translation Project
http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/translation/registry.cgi?team=pt
_______________________________________________
cl-opengl-devel mailing list
cl-opengl-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cl-opengl-devel
