(gah, I always forget to hit "Reply All") On 12.11.2006, at 14:51, Bart Botta wrote:

I'm not arguing that the behavior of the hand written API should change*, just the shape of the parameters. gl:clear still handles combining the arguments, it just uses logior instead of make-bitfield.

*(well, actually, I might argue that the API should change, but if I did, the argument would be that cl-opengl is too low level, not that it should be closer to the C API :)

Well, I don't see any significant advantage in doing so.

Or my bindings if I release them, I was just hoping to have that behavior as a subset of cl-opengl to avoid pointless forks :)

It's not pointless fork if it wants to do things differently. This project was originally made to collaborate with Luis Oliveira on writing Lispy OpenGL bindings that suit our personal needs. Nothing more. As I said, writing bindings is not rocket science and one could generate a simple set in an afternoon if desired, so I do not see any harm in having more than one.

I was thinking more of workstation level cards, 3dlabs realizm, etc. http://www.delphi3d.net/hardware/viewreport.php?report=1503

Easy enough to just add more enums to cover the extra if you stay with cffi enums, so it isn't too much of a problem.

Well yeah, it wasn't meant to be dismissive, just that I don't see it as a big problem that would justify switching to defconstants. It's easy to switch those few functions to accept integers instead of enums and have a function like this: (defun enum-value (base value &key (min 0) (max most-positive-fixnum)) (assert (or (keywordp value) (<= min value max))) (if (keywordp value) (foreign-enum-value 'enum value) (+ (foreign-enum-value 'enum base) value))) and change gl:light to use it: (defun light (light pname value) (let ((light-name (enum-value :light0 value :max 4096))) (%glLightfv light-name ...))) There, problem solved. You can now call it like (gl:light :light7 ...) or (gl:light 7 ...) and it should work. We don't even need to define new enums.

Sorry, I meant CLX, not GLX : http://common-lisp.net/~crhodes/clx/gl.lisp and CL-SDL is a set of lisp bindings for SDL and OpenGL.

The 2 libraries you linked both used GL_FOO style constants/defparameters though, so not sure how much it matters.

I didn't even look closely at them to be honest. It's just that I never see any juggling of +constants+ in native Lisp code and think that it's a C-ism that I want to avoid.

Might be, I'll have to see if I can think of any concrete tests and try it...

Sure, it'd be nice to know for certain, but I can't imagine any situation where looking up a few keywords at runtime would be a bottleneck in any shape, way or form unless you construct such a case. You're supposed to minimize the number of OpenGL calls anyway and I expect the cost of doing such a lookup is absolutely dwarfed by the cost of doing the call itself and possibly introducing pipeline bubbles. -- Oliver Markovic