Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> writes: > I'm really ambivalent about these patches. > > 1. I'm not a huge fan of the name "have_version"...it sounds like it > would return whether a driver supports a given version, not whether the > current context's version is a certain value. > > 2. Personally I think ctx->Version <= XY is clearer than > !_mesa_have_version(ctx, X, Y + 1). With the two-digit notation, you > can just do whatever comparison you like, rather than having to negate >>= and possibly increment the minor version being compared. > > 3. _mesa_have_version(ctx, 3, 1) is longer than ctx->Version >= 31 > > 3. I really don't see the major * 10 + minor notation needing to be > changed in the future. Even if Khronos did offer (say) a GL 4.3.1 > release, the likelihood of it making incompatible changes over 4.3 that > require special checks is infinitesimal. It would just be clarifications... > > Normally, I'm all for encapsulation, but I guess I just don't see much > point. That said, I won't object too strongly if people prefer this > approach.
Seconding this.
pgpIhu8NUjuRL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
