Re: compiling GL
Re: compiling GL
- Subject: Re: compiling GL
- From: magenta <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:13:20 -0800
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 08:27:01AM -0500, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 02:46 AM, magenta wrote:
>
> > Wait, my mistake... EXT calls are different, and don't have to be
> > retained
> > (though it's good practice to).
> >
> > I wonder why Perl's OpenGL bindings still use OpenGL 1.0-era API calls
> > though (I mean, you'd think if they were supporting vertex arrays,
> > they'd
> > be assuming at least OpenGL 1.1). That's weird. I mean, OpenGL 1.0
> > has
> > been obsolete for *ages*.
>
> Could be that it's doing some kind of check for defines and making
> assumptions based on it, and it's not finding some define it needs.
Well, yeah, that's how a well-behaved app is supposed to work... choose a
minimum level of support (OpenGL 1.0 in this case, apparently) and then
#ifdef around everything newer. It relies on the header files matching the
implementation, though. In any case, I don't see why people bother to
still bother to support OpenGL 1.0... for most applications, the amount of
thunking between 1.0 and 1.1 is VAST compared to 1.1 and anything newer
than that.
--
http://trikuare.cx
_______________________________________________
x11-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/x11-users
X11 for Mac OS X FAQ: http://developer.apple.com/qa/qa2001/qa1232.html
Report issues, request features, feedback: http://developer.apple.com/bugreporter
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.