Per Inge Mathisen schreef:
On 1/9/07, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure what you are referring to. Can you give me a pointer?
I see now that even the back-end is mixed C/C++ (as opposed to pure
C++), anyway:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:37:51 -0500 Giel van Schijndel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes that alThunk file is just about the only back-end file I've
really
opened. Anyway my point was: it is possible to link C with C++
code. I
think I've proven that one.
--
On Sunday, 7 January 2007 at 14:17, Per Inge Mathisen wrote:
On 1/7/07, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well the problem with a local tree would be that I would only be able to
commit anything but incremental changes without breaking things (i.e.
without breaking the trunk).
Dennis Schridde schreef:
Am Montag, 8. Januar 2007 19:43 schrieb Christian Ohm:
I see several advantages to a public branch compared to working just on
a local copy:
- Other people have the chance to comment, test, report bugs, help with
coding... (impossible if noone knows what you're
Dennis Schridde schreef:
Am Montag, 8. Januar 2007 21:08 schrieb Giel van Schijndel:
Dennis Schridde schreef:
[...]
What I don't agree with is making a C interface to a C++ interface to
OpenAL - seems like duplicated work to me. I'd just use C++ in the code
and compile the
On 1/8/07, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact OpenAL itself is written largely in C++. They simply wrapped its
interface (or more accurately the include files with function
declarations) in an extern C {...} declaration to make sure the
compiler generates C-style symbols which
Per Inge Mathisen schreef:
On 1/8/07, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact OpenAL itself is written largely in C++. They simply wrapped its
interface (or more accurately the include files with function
declarations) in an extern C {...} declaration to make sure the
compiler
Per Inge Mathisen schreef:
On 1/8/07, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What OpenAL implementation are you talking about? The sample
implementation looks pretty pure C to me.
The backend.
I am not sure what you are referring to. Can you give me a pointer?
I see now that even the
On 1/9/07, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure what you are referring to. Can you give me a pointer?
I see now that even the back-end is mixed C/C++ (as opposed to pure
C++), anyway:
http://www.openal.org/repos/openal/trunk/OpenAL-Windows/Router/
Looks pure C to me.
Hi,
First of all, Happy New Year to you all !
Now I guess I have to answer this...
When I ported that sound code to OpenAL, I first tried to use the
parameters you mentionned (for position, attenuation model etc.).
Problem was the attenuation didn't sound good (I tested with all
models). It
On 1/7/07, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway if nobody objects (yes, read that in your opinion the sound code
isn't crappy, no specifics however, so if you object please clarify),
I'll create a (temporary(?)) branch somewhere tomorrow (i.e. after 1300
CET, cause I won't be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
Hi,
First of all, Happy New Year to you all !
Same to you and every one else ;-)
Now I guess I have to answer this...
When I ported that sound code to OpenAL, I first tried to use the
parameters you mentionned (for position, attenuation model etc.).
Problem
Per Inge Mathisen schreef:
On 1/7/07, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway if nobody objects (yes, read that in your opinion the sound code
isn't crappy, no specifics however, so if you object please clarify),
I'll create a (temporary(?)) branch somewhere tomorrow (i.e. after
On 1/7/07, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well the problem with a local tree would be that I would only be able to
commit anything but incremental changes without breaking things (i.e.
without breaking the trunk).
Maybe I should not use the word 'tree'. What I mean is another
Am Samstag, 6. Januar 2007 07:00 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I doubt anyone has even looked at that code much. If it looks like
you can improve it, then why not.
Sure, do it. I won't object. The sound code is currently crappy anyways as
many people report that they have problems with distorted
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 06:53:04 -0500 Dennis Schridde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Samstag, 6. Januar 2007 07:00 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I doubt anyone has even looked at that code much. If it looks like you can
improve it, then why not.
Sure,
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:11:20 -0500 Giel van Schijndel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 06:53:04 -0500 Dennis Schridde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Samstag, 6. Januar 2007 07:00 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I doubt anyone has even looked at that
I doubt anyone has even looked at that code much. If it looks like
you can improve it, then why not.
I don't see that on the tasks list. Then again, I don't see GUI
overhaul on it neither.
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:10:25 -0500 Giel van Schijndel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just taking a look
18 matches
Mail list logo
