simplify the code and fix backward compatibility

[avilleret]

Signed-off-by: Antoine Villeret antoine.villeret@gmail.com

[umlaeute]

i don't see how this retains backwards compatibility as compared to your original version with your fixes.

what's more i find this behaviour slightly irritating:

1. create [gemvertexbuffer 100]
2. send it a [draw_range 10 30( message
3. send it a [resize 120( message
4. it will have an effective range of 10..120 ???

[avilleret]

in the original version, the range indexes are not set automatically
in the new version, the start index is set to 0 on startup
and the end is set to vbo_size at startup and on [resize( message
but it seems to be a bad idea to reset the end index on [resize(
it could be easily fixed
but I'm wondering the need to resize while still using a smaller range ?

[umlaeute]

On 2014-01-09 14:49, Antoine Villeret wrote:

in the original version, the range indexes are not set automatically
in the new version, the start index is set to 0 on startup
and the end is set to vbo_size at startup and on [resize( message
but it seems to be a bad idea to reset the end index on [resize(
it could be easily fixed
but I'm wondering the need to resize while still using a smaller range ?

does my current 'master' works as you expect it?

gfsdmtr
IOhannes

[avilleret]

sorry I didn't see your modification before making mine...
and yes it works as I expect
in my case, I let OpenGL doing the check and throwing a "GL : invalid
enumerant" in the Pd console
your version is more "ceinture-bretelle" (a french expression to denote a
double security)
but works fine and is more silent

thanks for your time

a

do it yourself
http://antoine.villeret.free.fr

2014/1/9 umläute notifications@github.com

On 2014-01-09 14:49, Antoine Villeret wrote:

in the original version, the range indexes are not set automatically
in the new version, the start index is set to 0 on startup
and the end is set to vbo_size at startup and on [resize( message
but it seems to be a bad idea to reset the end index on [resize(
it could be easily fixed
but I'm wondering the need to resize while still using a smaller range ?

does my current 'master' works as you expect it?

gfsdmtr
IOhannes

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/5#issuecomment-31932476
.