On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 17:04 +0100, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
On 02/03/2012 01:53 PM, dmotd wrote:
is the Vertex code obsolete? there's a lot of references to apple/altivec which suggests that it was designed for a certain
i don't think there was a release ever that included the [vertex_*] objectfamily. as you guessed, they were developped mainly (almost: exclusively) by our apple faction (chris & jamie), and have not been touched for years.
okay, i think i'm up to speed, been reading through mailing list logs and browsing the code, so i have a better understanding of the intentions of cgc and tigital with their vertex experiments..
it makes sense to resurrect some of vertex_* code and clean it up, although i'm a little hesitant about working with it directly as it has a pretty limited scope and the structure is a bit loose and abstracted. i also don't want to break anyones patches who might still be using their code, or require it for running legacy work.
perhaps a good compromise is to create a separate set of lower level vertex objects and in future wrap the vertex_* code in abstractions or a general purpose vertex class?
is the vtx_ prefix available, a quick scan suggests so? if so i'll start naming new vertex related objects thus to differentiate (and it matches nicely to the three letter shortening of pix).
in related news, i now have a simple vertex-array triangle interacting with gem manips and i can confirm that 'view' and 'perspec' messages to the gemwin are operational. good fun!
i'm currently thinking the best way to replace basic geos is to wrap a vtx_array/draw procedure in a pd abstraction instead of hard coded objects. the abstractions could be included using autotools when a combination of --disable-Geos and --enbable-Vertex are set. any thoughts or am i being short sighted?
cheers! dmotd
ps.. i'll cleanup the code tomorrow or monday and push to github. still haven't tested a qemu environment either, but both tasks should be good motivation for the other.