On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Michael Gold wrote:
> I don't agree with your interpretation. I assert that (b) addresses your
> concerns, and most of mine as well.
As I said before, if accepting (b) will avoid (c), I'll accept (b).
I'm suprised that (c) enthusiasts would find having to define a new
symbol (option (b)) somehow more palatable than including a new header
file (option (a)) - but it's not a big deal.
I believe that in the fullness of time, the oglbase spec would come to
be the standard on all non-windoze machines. Hence, in a year or two
from now you'll just be able to assume the existance of oglbase and
unconditionally include glext.h on non-windoze machines.
You'll have (for portable code):
#include <GL/gl.h>
#include <GL/glu.h>
#ifdef WIN32
#include <windows.h>
#else
#include <GL/glext.h>
#endif
...if you don't need windoze portability then:
#include <GL/gl.h>
#include <GL/glu.h>
#include <GL/glext.h>
That's why (a) beats (b) for me.
> 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?
No - I'll happily accept (b) if it stops this eternal debate.
Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax)
Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hti.com
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
