> Even if this were not true, and memory corruption occurred - a bug is a bug
> is a bug. I don't think we should design the interface to prevent buggy
> programs from crashing.
Ok, I'm a lurker on this list -- but as an application programmer,
I see no problem with getting proc addresses from context dependent
visuals... If I require a routine that aids in the creation of new
visuals, then I am happy to either:
i) create a dummy visual to grab the function pointer (messy but Ok)
ii) use a specialised platform dependent proc address function
Why can't there be both? Admitadely, it may be getting a little more
obfuscated than it needs to be, but we are talking about extensions which
are only used by people who are familiar with the API and how it works.
Has anybody considered having two options with the possibility of one
becoming deprecated in future?
For what it's worth, I agree with Michael -- DON'T design an API call
that is trying to fix application bugs, that's our (well, mine anyway)
job as the application programmer. I would feel safer knowing that the
API call would just work as specified, and not do anything overly
'tricky'...
Of course, I might have missed this argument pretty much and am just
talking fud... :)
Leathal.
