Jon,
> The public comment period is over; the only substantive comment was
> Mark Kilgard's regarding the GL_HAS_GLEXT symbol. Opinion was pretty
> weak either way.
My opinion about GL_HAS_GLEXT is not at all weak. I am quite insistent on
the need for this preprocessor define. The overhead for the change is
totoally minimal and the need is great.
There was only one weak alternative to GL_HAS_GLEXT that didn't address
the general language issue for base ANSI C preprocessors.
Without GL_HAS_GLEXT, it is impossible to portably know if <GL/glext.h>
can be included without a compile-time error.
Let's *definitely* make GL_HAS_GLEXT part of the Linux OpenGL standard.
Thanks.
- Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 7:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [oglbase-discuss] Let's finish this puppy
Jon Leech wrote:
>
> The public comment period is over; the only substantive comment was
> Mark Kilgard's regarding the GL_HAS_GLEXT symbol. Opinion was pretty
> weak either way.
Well, I put the GL_HAS_GLEXT symbol in the glext.h file I made for
XFree86 4.0.
> Unless there is a compelling demonstration of support for including
> this symbol by Friday (when I get back from the ARB meeting), I suggest
> we declare v. 1.0 of the ABI done on Friday, and announce it on Monday.
OK.
-Brian
