On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 22:58 -0700, Devyn Cairns wrote: > It should probably be easier to put into Shoes than SDL, that's my > experience.
At least in this particular case, it's kind of the opposite way around. I had actually originally planned on supporting Shoes from the beginning, but SDL turned out to be easier. I actually kind of lucked out with SDL -- it exposes its structures as part of its API, so there is a certain stability there and I can reach in and directly manipulate things enough without the explicit cooperation of the enclosing Ruby API. Shoes (and in particular Cairo) makes things harder, though, since there are a lot of abstract structures involved and a lot less binary compatibility of structures generally. What I need from Shoes in this case is for Shoes to publish an explicit API to other C extensions somehow which they can use to access/write image data. (Unfortunately Ruby doesn't have the same infrastructure for collaboration between C extensions that e.g. Python does, but I am getting some ideas...) > But.... WOW! I thought you guys would approve. :) -mental
