On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Bart Botta <000...@gmail.com> wrote: > The "spec" that cl-opengl parses is a more-or-less machine readable > file available at http://www.opengl.org/registry/, not the actual > specification. I'm not aware of anything similar for ES, so if the > functions are not included in the main .spec files some other strategy > would be required.
Right, I was assuming that ES would also have a .spec file. That doesn't seem to be the case. > I'd probably just parse the .h files to get a > rough translation then edit it by hand from there, if the versions > don't overlap as much as desktop GL. The set of egl* functions seems small enough to take this route. I'd probably even skip the .h parsing step. The remaining questions are: do we want a cl-opengl-es-1.1 system that only loads the relevant bits? (As opposed to defining the egl* bits then loading all of the remaining cl-opengl.) If so, what would be the best way to do it? One solution would be to list the ES's gl* functions somewhere in our spec directory and have the spec parser output those definitions to a separate directory/system, let's call it cl-opengl-base. Both cl-opengl and and cl-opengl-es-1.1 would then depend on cl-opengl-base. Simon, does this look like a sane approach? -- Luís Oliveira http://r42.eu/~luis/ _______________________________________________ cl-opengl-devel mailing list cl-opengl-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cl-opengl-devel
