Christian Schladetsch wrote:
Gevorg Voskanyan wrote:
The idea to have a proper C++ interface for DirectX sounds a good one indeed, but does it have to be in boost to be widely useful for C++ folks out there?
No, it doesn't.
But if it didn't have a boost:: prefix, it wouldn't have the cross-company oomf that is needed to make it a worthwhile intellectual goal.
I can understand that.
The point of boost:: is to be a quasi-standard. I recognise that. That is why I am here, arguing for a DirectX namespace within boost, rather than elsewhere making Yet Antother DirectX Wrapper.
Are the other wrappers good enough from C++ (or boost, for that matter) point of view? If not, then it might be worthy to make an improvement in that area. That was my point. YMMV
I have as much interest in wrapping DirectX as I have in arguing its merits against OpenGL.
Even so, there are things you need to do, like vertex declarations, that are required. These can be helped with mpl. There are other things that boost can give DX users as well, and these should be shown to people.
In the form of examples in mpl, perhaps?
That is my point. That is only my point. I know it's not "pure boost", but meh.
I guess you'll have a hard time convincing the other boost guys to have a top-level boost library that represents a wrapper of DirectX API, including myself, for the reasons already outlined. Sorry.
Christian.
Best Regards, Gevorg