PortableGL

So, it's only 9 months past when I initially released it, but I'm finally posting it to my projects page and writing this perfunctory blog post about it.

In a nutshell, it's a portable, single header library, written in clean-C (ie C++ safe), implementing OpenGL 3.x ish. In other words, it runs entirely on the CPU and its only dependency is C99, though all the examples and demos use SDL2.

You can read more about it and look at the examples here.

New REPLS

A few days ago I added created 4 new repls of 4 of my C projects. I added repls for:

• spelling_game
• CPIM2
• C_Interpreter
• sorting

These join the one I had for my Goodreads SQLite database. So you can now try all of these out in the browser here

CVector 4.0

I recently finished some relatively major changes and improvements to CVector.

Since the most recent changes involved actual changes to the API, both adding new functions and modifing a few existing ones, I've bumped the version up to 4.0.

Since I've never done an update post like this, and you can look at the main project page and documentation etc. for all the details I'll just sum up some changes from about the last year (since about 3.1.0 give or take):

• Changing elem_init to return an int to indicate failure/success (and adding that checking where it's called)
• Renaming copy functions to match type-as-suffix convention
• Adding a copyc function that does initialization first, ie copy constructor
• Adding a CVEC_STRDUP macro wrapper which defaults to internal cvec_strdup if user doesn't set it
• Adding "move" function varieties (m suffix) for non-POD vectors that do not call elem_init/elem_free or CVEC_STRDUP/free.
• Adding a remove function that doesn't call elem_free/free (predates "move" functions... should I add an m even though the normal "remove" is called erase? Or rename remove to erasem for consistency?)
• Fixing several bugs and semi-bugs/QOL issues
• Adding lots of new tests to cover most if not all new functionality
• probably more that I'm forgetting

Renaming remove to erasem occurred to me briefly, and I do appreciate the consistency, but I already had remove and theoretically not breaking existing code (even if it's just mine) is a worthy goal and I feel the english connotations of erase vs remove are appropriate here. Sigh, now I've pretty much talked myself into adding an erasem wrapper macro that calls remove.