C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG13] 2D graphics for Cologne - P0267R9

From: Michael McLaughlin <mikebmcl_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:40:28 -0400
It's possible that mouse and touch input will be combined into a single
API. We'll see. One thing that is definitely up for debate in my opinion is
whether or not multi-touch and, if so, gestures should be incorporated into
the input API. I'm weakly against a multi-touch API at the moment, but I
don't want the API to exclude the possibility of a multi-touch API down
the road. I think a gestures API would be a bad idea at this point though,
since they are fairly new and with a multi-touch API programmers could
implement one if desired (provided the API provides unique values for each
touch (looping would be permissible since even a Jelly-Fish wouldn't be
able to trigger anything close to the value of a signed, let alone
unsigned, int number of unique, consecutive touches before it would be
necessary to loop)).


On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:31 PM Tony V E via SG13 <sg13_at_[hidden]>

> I can only imagine that mouse/touch input needs to be in the same
> coordinate system as the drawing.
> Sent from my BlackBerry portable Babbage Device
> *From: *Rene Rivera via SG13
> *Sent: *Monday, June 17, 2019 7:08 PM
> *To: *sg13_at_[hidden]
> *Reply To: *sg13_at_[hidden]
> *Cc: *Rene Rivera
> *Subject: *Re: [SG13] 2D graphics for Cologne - P0267R9
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:42 PM Michael McLaughlin via SG13 <
> sg13_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> The next revision of 2D graphics will be presented at the upcoming
>> Cologne meeting. As opposed to making everyone wait for the mailing, if you
>> would like, you can access R9, the paper submitted for the pre-meeting
>> mailing, here:
>> https://github.com/cpp-io2d/io2dts/blob/master/papers/P0267R9.pdf .
> Even though I'm still reading the paper I feel I should point out
> something that struct me in the "Introduction", while reading this
> statement:
> "...the design of an input API is inherently reliant on the design of
> the output API..."
> and how it's used as a justification "to only pursue of the input API
> after the output API design was complete." In my experience I don't see any
> truth in that statement no matter how hard I try to think about it. Maybe
> my experience in the user interaction field is limited, but I can't
> remember a case where a rendering, i.e. output, API was required for the
> input. Can you provide some reference material to support your claim in
> this respect?
> --
> -- Rene Rivera
> -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
> -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
> --
> SG13 mailing list
> SG13_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg13

Received on 2019-06-17 19:42:46