First I said: > 3) Desire for dissimilar contexts to co-exist without knowledge of any > other context. Then David said: > I believe this is a (n)on-goal. In order to allow multiple vendor > implementations of OpenGL to co-exist on the same platform, > a binary standard is required for dispatching that all dd code > and therefor contexts must be vaguely cognizant of. It needn't > be complicated - a simple name-based registration mechanism and > a jump table would suffice. This is nothing > more than part of the binary standard. Huh? How can this be a non-goal when you then assert the almost identical position and implementation suggestion I did? What we have here is a failure to communicate :-) John
