On 29.03.2011 15:37, Antony Martin wrote: > OK I got a better overview now. The "unified" syntax wouldn't be very > different > I guess, it should force both the VP and the FP to be of the same language > for > example.
From a syntax perspective there should be a new XML tag for “unified” shaders. (E.g. simply “<shader>”.) That way (a) old and new syntax can be distinguished (b) you can just assume all programs are in the right language (anything else -> syntax error). > I take a look into your source code. It is quite big so I'm still lost but > I've > spotted the GLShaderCg::csShaderGLCGFP/VP classes. Would an "unification" > involves to kinda merge them so that we will no longer be able to do an > Activate() that only acts on the active FP or VP? You should, for the start, don't attempt to “merge” any of the existing shader plugin implementations. Backwards compatibility should be provided by a wrapper plugin (you wrap a VP+FP pair and “activation” etc of the unified plugin just activates the wrapped plugins). -f.r.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Create and publish websites with WebMatrix Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself; WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and publish your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf
_______________________________________________ Crystal-main mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/crystal-main Unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
