On 09/03/2012 11:35 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
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.
I don't have a strong opinion on this bike shed either.
Maybe just leave things as-is for now. This patch can always be
reused in the future if the situation changes.
-Brian
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
