[ruby-opengl-devel] about gl_untyped.i
grin.k1tt3n at gmail.com
Tue Aug 29 15:43:16 EDT 2006
So would super_rubyish_opengl be the package where we define the
glVertex call that can
accept a Vector object?
I would find it useful if we could jot down these notes in a communal
place, maybe in Writely or something? A constantly evolving roadmap,
On 8/29/06, peter mclain <peter.mclain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Another approach, which I like, would be to keep the .bundle/.so
> > restricted to call the original libs (i.e. without the extra 'untyped'
> > functions) and put those 'extra' in a separate .rb file.
> > Briefly : minimal .bundle/.so wrapper modules and cool ruby stuff in .rb.
> > So we can either :
> > require 'opengl' (for other toolkit) or
> > require 'glut' (which requires itself opengl) or
> > require 'super_rubyish_opengl'
> I think I like this approach as it simplifies the task of getting
> the basic opengl port up and running (we can declare victory for
> super_rubyis_opengl hits the streets) and I don't have any good reason
> why the untyped support is written in C rather than ruby (perhaps
> performance??)...Yoshi did it that way and at this point in the
> project all I've done is unthinkingly copied it.
> > 2/
> > what's the reason to call the gl*d versions, not the gl*f versions ?
> Again, that's just the way Yoshi happened to write the code I
> cut-n-pasted. I think he just sais a double is at least as good as a
> float, so just do it that way. I think that for small datasets it is
> safe (won't loose precision) and if you really want the efficiency of
> not passing twice the bytes down to the card, then you can always call
> the appropriately typed version.
> Peter McLain
> peter.mclain at gmail.com
> ruby-opengl-devel mailing list
> ruby-opengl-devel at rubyforge.org
More information about the ruby-opengl-devel