On Oct 4, 7:03 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have to say, I've been somewhat taken aback by the enthusiasm for > Squirtle. The original release (all of two months ago) was really just > me putting out some code I'd been playing with, so that people could > have a go at using it in Pyweek. It's evolved a bit since then, but I > still see it as pretty much a toy project.
My reaction was more like, "Finally!" I've been secretly wishing for robust SVG capabilities in a python game library for about two years. I took a stab at it once, and had to quickly admit my lack of understanding, and my lack of a desire to understand. I know how to draw an SVG, I just don't want to know how to parse it. :) > That said, I am still working on it, and certainly think that some of > the suggestions that have been made will be filtering into new > releases over the coming weeks and months. Certainly, a tighter > coupling with Pyglet's excellent, if slightly arcane, system of groups > and batches would be a great idea, and it's one I'm going to look into > when next I have some time to work on it. I'm excited to hear this. I've not minded shoehorning the Sprite implementation into my own designs, but the extra flexibility will be welcome. (BTW: thanks John; I came up with something similar myself, but I think I see ways I can improve it based on your example.) > On the other hand, ideas like integrating fully into Pyglet, I think > are largely pipe dreams. Squirtle is very much currently in flux, and > while it's reasonably stable for inclusion of a single version in > projects, it's not really stable enough from an API perspective to be > merged into a backwards and forwards compatible library, and nor would > I wish it to be so right now. I'm still very much playing with the > interface. That makes sense. Do pardon my exuberance; I'd just integrated it into a new project and been impressed by the ease with which it had carried itself through. I got a little bit giddy (remember: two year wait). Perhaps when Squirtle does settle down to a stable API, you'll reconsider. > The point about a formal project page is well taken, and I'll do > something about that over the next few days. I am somewhat bemused by > the idea of "packaging up" Squirtle - it's currently a single .py > file. How much more packaged do you want it? I admit, I'm a PyPI zealot. I love setuptools and setup.py, and I like just declaring my dependencies and not having to muck around with tracking updates on a module manually, or setting up on svn:externals declaration, etc. This may all be overkill for a single .py file, true, but it's really easy to set up, and PyPI would at least be free advertising. :) > Anyway, thanks again for your interest in the project, and please > don't take my skepticism the wrong way. I really am interested in what > users would like from Squirtle. Not at all. I do hope you'll excuse me for my brashness. Thanks for taking the time to respond, thanks for Squirtle, and may further development go smoothly. I'll reiterate my wishlist, in easy checklist format: * AbstractImage/batch/group integration * A project site, for tracking updates, perhaps eventually documentation? * Upload to PyPI? * Zoomable/transformable SVG rendering * transformable as in stretching and squashing * perhaps these are already possible; I haven't looked into it. * perhaps these aren't compatible with the batch/group integration? * ... I think that's it. Thanks, David > Martin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
