On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 11:24:14AM -0700, Michael I Gold wrote:
> This is a prefectly valid technique (although I know Jon disapproves of
> overloading the symbol name for a locally declared pointer).
Because such code is inherently nonportable by claiming part of a
reserved namespace, yes.
> In fact this is the exact case which makes option A so undesireable; if gl.h
> includes a declaration for glActiveTextureARB, the function pointer name
> would have to change to avoid a compile-time error.
This is an example of why I'd like to hear from more ISVs on this
type of issue. Nobody actually writing apps has complained about this
behavior yet.
> As an aside, the purist in me would prefer we rethink the decision to allow
> static linking of the GL_ARB_multitexture entry points. It seems a bit
> inconsistent to statically link one extension but no others, and I'm
> thinking of what will happen if we decide to promote another extension to
> static linkability in the future.
This happened because OpenGL 1.2 + ARB_multitexture was the set of
ARB-approved OpenGL APIs at the time. I have been assuming that more ARB
extensions will be added in future revs of the ABI (assuming we ever get
to 1.0, that is) as they become widely implemented. There is
preprocessor hideousness that can be used no matter whether the
prototype is declared or not, BTW.
Jon Leech
SGI
