From: John T. <nu...@me...> - 2011-02-28 15:15:23
|
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:58:05AM +0100, Florian Echtler wrote: > Sorry for bringing this up again, but... no opinions at all? Anyone? > > > - Is there any interest to integrate this into freeglut as an optional > > feature (i.e., something enabled by an explicit configure switch)? I don't see why not > > FGAPI void FGAPIENTRY glutXExtensionEntryFunc( > > void (* callback)( int, int ) ); > > FGAPI void FGAPIENTRY glutXExtensionButtonFunc( > > void (* callback)( int, int, int, int, int ) ); > > FGAPI void FGAPIENTRY glutXExtensionMotionFunc( > > void (* callback)( int, int, int ) ); > > FGAPI void FGAPIENTRY glutXExtensionPassiveFunc( > > void (* callback)( int, int, int ) ); > > > > Obviously, the interface names is still influenced by the MPX origin > > (which has been superseded by XI2 anyway). The additional int parameter > > in every callback specifies the pointer or touchpoint ID which the data > > belongs to. > > > > Are there any suggestions from the side of the freeglut community as to > > how the API should look like w.r.t. naming etc.? > > (Particularly since the functions are now also supported in Windows 7). I have no experience whatsoever about multitouch APIs, but it looks reasonable from a first glance. Care to explain a bit more what the entry function does? I think the rest are pretty obvious. -- John Tsiombikas http://nuclear.mutantstargoat.com/ |