[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [grt-talk] Crawling towards 0.1
From: |
Jason Dagit |
Subject: |
Re: [grt-talk] Crawling towards 0.1 |
Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 01:05:40 -0700 |
The sdl code is there. It's broken in a sense or two...More about
that later...I did an update anyway...
Nikodemus Siivola wrote (on Sun, 6 Apr 2003 at 21:34 +0300):
> Slow but steady... I'd really like to have the 0.1 to be in a
> fairly reasonable state as a package, so as not to give people bad
> first impressions. So most of the effort right now is going into
> infrastructure kind of things, not features.
Can you hook up the code I wrote so that it gets conditionally loaded
the way your clx code is?
> Done
>
> * Some optimizations, mostly declaimed ftypes, but something else
> as well.
I tried to do a bit of that too...But I'm not good at it.
> * Added dist.sh and dist.txt to CVS. These are just convenience
> tools to make a tarkit. dist.sh makes a tarkit, and dist.txt lists
> all files that go into tarkit.
I could write us a traditional makefile if that would be easier.
> * See that everything that should be exported is exported.
We should export grt::make so that we can use it to compile the
examples maybe.
> To be decided:
>
> * Do we yet need any documentation besides README kind of stuff?
> If so, should it be in in what format? TexInfo? DocBook? Latex?
I don't know TexInfo or DocBook, but I use LaTex on a daily basis. If
I have something to write about I could 'tex it up.
> * After 0.1 what kind of release philosophy do we have? Release
> whenever it feels like it? Release by features sets? Release N
> times a year? Some combination?
I say we release by feature sets. I also think we should try to
maintain linux kernel style version numbers. But we don't have a
stable release yet...:)
The reason I say the code that I just committed is broken is because
you have to compile cl-sdl-window.lisp twice before it will load. But
I don't know how to fix it. For one thing, the form it complains
about doesn't appear in my code as near as I can tell. I think its in
either the cl-uffi code or cl-sdl code. I guess we could look for it
there and submit a patch to them. I have a patch I've been try to get
into cl-sdl, but they seem uninterested. Granted, it's a bit silly,
but I think a get-pixel function is useful...
Do we have plans/need antialiasing?
I updated examples.lisp. If you want to use the new sdl code do this:
(all-examples :sdl t :screen t) ;;with preview
or
(all-examples :sdl t) ;;with-out preview
Basically, I put the most important options into key form and then
all-examples passes those values on to each example. Look at the code
if that doesn't make sense...
Tell me if it works for you.
Jason