Sven Panne schrieb:
* a tiny "ObjectName" package, consisting only of OpenGL's ObjectName class (In "Data.ObjectName"? I'm not very sure about a good place in the hierarchy here.)
How about Data.GraphicsObjects ?
* a package containing most of the data types/newtypes in OpenGL's VertexSpec module (Vertex{2,3,4}, Color{3,4}, etc.) plus instances for the base classes like Eq, Ord, Show, etc. I really don't know a good name for this package and what a good place in the hierarchy would be (probably something like "Data.Foo", but what is Foo?)
Now that you mention it. I just looked through haskell hierachical libraries and there seems to be no standard data types for vector math. Am I getting something wrong or is every library that is using linear algebra stuff using its own data types? So if I use a numeric library for matrices inside HOpenGL I have to convert around? I think it would be nice to have data types and functions for dot produkt, scalar product, norms, ... together with HOpenGL types. Currently I am trying to embed a triangulation library from a ten year old diploma thesis (http://www.dinkla.net/fp/cglib.html) in my libary (I know that glu has tesselation). The author has developed a quite big and abstract type structure for all sorts of computer graphics algorithms and I didn't wanted to copy this into my library just for triangulation. But it is reasonable. It could be combined with HOpenGL types to maybe Data.VectorMath or Data.LinearAlgebra . I would favour the second.
The point is: The first two package would be very small. Would this be OK? Does anybody see other alternatives? What would be good names for those packages and where in the naming hierarchy should they really go?
Cheers, S. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe