Good to hear from you again, Felipe! I'd like to clarify the reason for the macros and spec file. I've introduced these as a major refactoring to the codebase, which I think was my major contribution to LibreDWG.
The idea is that the file format is declared only once in the spec file, so that we avoid the duplicate-effort of implementing both the read and the write routines for the same datastructures. So, the overal file format is described only once, and read-specific or write-specific macros will convert the spec into C code for eighter reading or writing the file format. happy hacking, Felipe Sanches On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Felipe Castro <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > It's nice to see that people keep working on this stuff. I'm having a bit > of time to dive into libredwg in these next few months, and I'd like to > offer some help in order to reach a first release, 0.4 version for example. > > When I started that libDWG project alone, I didn't hope to attract much > interest with other collaborators, mainly because of the Esperanto stuff in > there. For me it is really very pleasant to work with that language, but I > know it does not have so much appeal for other programmers in general. And > digging in the last git code of LibreDWG, I see some "esperantissues" lying > around... So I may help to finish the code translation to English, as a > starting point. :-) > > What would be the main goal for version 0.4? Isn't it to get a working and > useful reading library for the early versions (R13, R14, R2000, R2004)? If > it is working, why not to release just like that, an alpha version? > > Next step, try to work out the writing capability? > > Next one, work on further versions (R2007, and so on)? > > I'm trying to understand the changes in the "refactoring" branch. I think > it's mainly a matter of splitting the code in some smaller files. More > include files to worry about, maybe it's worthwhile, if it brings more > organization. The doxygen stuff is cool also. > > The API is a really huge work, and it could start with very simple things, > because there are functions there that maybe would never be used in a > simple CAD environment. But it doesn't hurt anyway to have access on every > little peace of Autodesk creativity (handles, for example), that's the > final goal if you want total control of the file format. Would it be useful > to follow some DXF references? See: > http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?id=12272454&linkID=10809853&siteID=123112 > > I don't know what would be the best way to access the API, but I think > including "api.h" will not be the final result for the library user, rigth? > Will it be included from the "dwg.h" header? > > And the r2007 stuff, I didn't touch it, too much for my brain now... > > Another little suggestion, in general: what about turning back to the > "near side of the moon..."? Some of those MACROS... hum, I don't know, just > annoying, and those .spec files remember me RedHat... ;-) > > Hoping not to hurt hearts with some of my considerations, sincerely yours, > Felipe Castro. >
