Re: what is current status of OpenGL and Ada?

[BrianG <me@null.email>]

On 02/06/2012 11:23 PM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Le Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:33:49 +0100, BrianG <me@null.email> a écrit:
>> (I occasionally return to my attempt to build a binding, based on the
>> 'Red Book', but it doesn't hold enough interest for me to keep at it
>> very long. I did learn that you can't use a single name for all
>> versions of a function - because then you can't call it with all
>> literal parameters {there's no way to resolve the short/long or
>> float/double versions}. At a minimum, you need 2 names; I prefer to
>> use the 2nd for the literal case, but never came up with a reasonable
>> naming convention.)
>
> Or else four packages with static genericity.
>
> package OpenGL.With_Shorts is
> function F1 (Param1 : Short, ...);
> function F2 (Param1 : Short)
> function F2 return Short;
> ...
> end ...;
>
> package OpenGL.With_Longs is
> function F1 (Param1 : Long, ...);
> function F2 (Param1 : Long)
> function F2 return Long;
> ...
> end ...;
>
> And so on.
>
Yes, and that might be one good way to organize the bindings.  I presume 
that a typical program would tend to use one 'flavor' of number 
more-or-less consistently.

One thing I would like is to a way to organize the package structure in 
a way that makes _using_ it easier.  Most OpenGL programs I've looked 
at, which isn't many, with (or #include) all/most parts of the library 
structure, because it was organized for the library _writer's_ benefit. 
  (This probably applies to most large, structured libraries).

-- 
---
BrianG
000
@[Google's email domain]
.com