On Fri, 19 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 09:41:04AM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
> |
> | Allen had suggested GL_NONPORTABLE_SDK and I'm happy to go along with that
> | unless someone has a better idea.
>
> Before the vote was held, Jon and I had an offline discussion about
> it. Jon suggested that we start carving out a GL_GLEXT namespace
> because there were several things that seemed to be falling into that
> category, and I agreed that was a good idea. So the call-for-vote
> suggested using GL_GLEXT_PROTOTYPES.
>
> However, I acknowledge that the suggestion is weak, because things in
> addition to prototypes are involved. How about GL_GLEXT_LEGACY
> instead? That should capture the notion of restoring all the old
> behavior.
So is there now some kind of a token that programs can use to say:
#ifdef {something}
use new ABI-like extension mechanism
#else
use legacy mechanisms
#endif
...if there is a way to do that with existing tokens (eg by checking
for the GetProcAddress extension token), then I think it would be wise
to state what that is in the specification so that people don't invent
new mechanisms that might be problematic in the future.
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
