> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Roell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 6:58 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [oglbase-discuss] Vote results: 1 YES, 2 A
>
>
> In your message of 10 April 2000 you write:
>
> > Three topics follow, and hopefully resolution of the A/B/C vote.
> >
> > First, since we're approaching completion of the debate over the
> > exact shape of glext.h, I've started generating a copy automatically
> > from the extension registry. It's at
> >
> > http://oss.sgi.com/projects/ogl-sample/ABI/glext.h
>
> Two things that should be changed:
>
> 1. The defines (types/tokens) should be per extensions, and guarded
> properly, so that they are only defined, if the extension has not
> been defined yet in gl.h. I know that in theory there should never
> be conflicts, but it would be just nicer to deal with.
One caveat: If gl.h defines the extension, it will not be redefined in
glext.h. This is bad because the prototype function pointer typedef will
therefore not be defined. The cleanest solution IMO is that gl.h should not
define any extensions when glext.h is in use. I know I am beating the same
drum again here, but extension defs in gl.h and inclusion of glext.h need to
be mutually exclusive for this very reason. This is why I prefer the B and
C solutions in the controversial vote.
> 2. Explicite function prototypes should go away. Either you use
> wglGetProcAddress() or glXGetProcAddressARB() to retieve the
> extension functions. Hence there are no external declarations
> needed. In fact it better if the compile can issue a warning about
> an undeclared function if a direct reference is encountered.
I am in complete agreement on both points.
