Quoting Lu?s Oliveira ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> That sucks. We need namespaces for packages. I'd argue that CLX could
> more easily use GLX as the package name. Any luck on that side?
If I understood Christophe Rhodes right, he would be prepared to accept
a patch renaming CLX's GL package. (Not sure
On 20/01/2008, David Lichteblau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately cl-opengl and CLX both define a package called GL, so we
> cannot dump a core file including them.
>
> Is there a chance that cl-opengl might switch to a more specific package
> name?
That sucks. We need namespaces for pack
Hi,
I was hoping to add cl-opengl as a main project to clbuild.
Unfortunately cl-opengl and CLX both define a package called GL, so we
cannot dump a core file including them.
Is there a chance that cl-opengl might switch to a more specific package
name?
d.
_
