From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9625531bdb853f2a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.68.74.201 with SMTP id w9mr10333415pbv.0.1328655654357;
        Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:00:54 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni272065pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!eweka.nl!lightspeed.eweka.nl!194.109.133.85.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news.stack.nl!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BrianG <me@null.email>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: what is current status of OpenGL and Ada?
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:00:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <jgsaf5$904$1@dont-email.me>
References: <jgl8vc$ofj$1@speranza.aioe.org> <op.v87fm3caule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <jglt15$1t2$1@speranza.aioe.org> <jgpv1u$1a5$1@dont-email.me>
 <op.v9ajtvpzule2fv@douda-yannick>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="TtuQlFl1tCpi+XZRA9iuwg";
	logging-data="9220"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19XCBfxEWWJInfpM795iN4r"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Thunderbird/3.1.16
In-Reply-To: <op.v9ajtvpzule2fv@douda-yannick>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cDsfHzT/FEsGC6lygHo9Dfp6/hQ=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-02-07T18:00:50-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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