Export Object and BaseObject definitions #9
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Owner
|
Actually it is possible already to have custom objects! You can look at the gfx package as an example, which only uses the public API of the tinygl package. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I faced the situation I wanted to experiment with new custom gfx components within my project.
Some of these new gfx components can be very specific and may not be merged in tinygl.
With current TinyGL, it's not possible to have graphics components in your project source tree, because there are some unexported structs/methods.
This PR changes some BaseObject/Object definitions to have them exported and allows external uses.
What is your opinion on this approach ?