> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 5:58 PM
>
> i'd still argue it is a practice fraught with peril (probably why
> windows programmers use it). if library developers
> start doing this, i guarantee they won't manage this part of the
> namespace correctly and end up exporting conflicting versions of
> gl* symbols. while this proposal might be fine for application
> developers, any library developer which uses this should have their
> keyboard confiscated.
This is a very good point, but its only one instance of the general problem
you describe for library developers. Namespace pollution is a problem which
transcends whatever decisions we reach here. I think it goes beyond our
burden to account for such cases.
I note that many compilers now support an "exports" list so you can
explicitly control which of your symbols are exported, and is generally
limited to the advertised API. This seems like the right model.
