In your message of 10 April 2000 you write:
> > -----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.
We have worked around that already, by putting both, the external
declatation as well as the function pointer declaration into gl.h
(for the extensions we support directly in libGL.so; legancy stuff
that is). This way the function pointers are always defined.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Roell /\ An imperfect plan executed violently
Xi Graphics / \/\ _ is far superior to a perfect plan.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / / \ \
/ Oelch! \ \ George Patton
