I thought the addition of such a token was vote number 1, which passed
unanimously. I don't remember the token name.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen J Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 5:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [oglbase-discuss] GL_NONPORTABLE_SDK
>
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:26:30AM -0500, Stephen J Baker wrote:
> > | On Fri, 19 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > | > 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
> >
> > At first blush, I'd say "use GL_GLEXT_LEGACY for that." (If it's
> > defined, use the old mechanism; otherwise use the new.) I might have
> > misunderstood your question, though.
>
> That's the wrong sense for backwards compatibility. I need something
> which is defined in ABI-compliant OpenGL's but not in a 'traditional'
> OpenGL that contains no GL_GLEXT_* tokens.
>
> GL_GLEXT_LEGACY only tells me that although this is an ABI-compliant
> implementation, all the new stuff has been turned off for some reason.
>
> Did we decide to have a GL_GLEXT_VERSION token? That would do nicely.
>
> 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
>
