[cairo] how to propose a change?
otaylor at redhat.com
Fri Aug 31 14:17:41 PDT 2007
[ Forgot to reply to the list before, trying again ]
On 8/31/07, Travis Griggs <tgriggs at cincom.com> wrote:
> As for the path storage, I'm pretty happy with how simple the current
> code is and given that the bad win32 performance is gone now, I don't
> think we need to change it for now.
> I would like to see the two approaches compared from a language binding pov
> when it comes to iterating paths. The current path mechanism was/is very
> difficult to implement a binding for. I kind of wondered if this more
> "streaming" storage would make it easier to increment through the
> information. But I'd have to see the structure definitions in more detail to
> get a better feel for this.
Note that this discussion has little to do with cairo_path_t ... it's
about the internal representation of paths.
I'm curious to what your problem is with cairo_path_t and language
bindings... http://cairographics.org/manual/bindings-path.html gives a
pretty detailed examples of how the binding should work and makes it
explicit that you should not copy the C API. There is, for the
proposed approach, a need to write manual glue code. But if the
hypothetical "language bindable" interface exhibited there were
actually implemented, it would result in both inefficiency and poor
More information about the cairo