> On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Michael Gold wrote:
>
> > This thing doesn't need to go on for another month as Jon
> fears, but I
> > personally don't mind a couple more days to reach a
> compromise solution, or
> > at least a less arbitrary tie-breaker.
>
> What new information could possibly by imparted?
You'll note that I didn't ask for continued debate, but for a different
method of determining the result, since we had a tie. In a subsequent post
I offered more arguments, but only at Thomas's request.
> Another day/week/month of debate isn't going to change the
> facts - I don't think it'll produce a new mechanism that'll
> suit everyone. Those of us in the A camp won't accept
> anything that'll stop existing programs from compiling
> correctly. Those in the C camp are clearly not accepting
> any change to what symbols they'll define or header files
> they'll include in order to keep the A people happy.
>
> That's an impass.
I don't agree with your interpretation. I assert that (b) addresses your
concerns, and most of mine as well.
That's a compromise. And given the polarity between the two camps, and the
fact that we had an exact split in the voting, I think a compromise is in
everyone's best interests. When I first proposed that glext.h be
conditionally included in gl.h, you seemed to indicate agreement, provided
that it be excluded by default. Is that no longer true?
