On Mon, 11 May 2009 10:12:11 +0400 dmitry boyarintsev <skalogryz.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The binding treats OpenGL versions in the same way as any other extension. Which isn't a good thing IMHO. The artificial limitation that you have to load higher version functions like extensions is just because M$ did and does not want to support OpenGL properly. As stated neither Linux nor OS X need this. So the bindings actually cripple the functionality of not M$ users. In C/C++ you can just include gl.h and glext.h and are done with it (as long as you don't work under Windoze). > Only new version function are loaded on demand. > This makes the binding very *flexible*. > Because some obsolete functions might be removed in future OpenGL versions. OpenGL up to 2.1 is fully backward compatible. Although there does not seem to be a requirement to do so, I don't know of any extension that ever got removed from the driver. Doing so would break older programs relying on the functionality, which no vendor likes to do. It is just not good when old games don't work anymore just because you updated your driver from 1.5 to 2.0. > Instead of changing the binding, why don't you just declare a single > utility function for your needs? > I don't want any workarounds. I want a clean and sane set of bindings that is not a major PITA to use. I don't have any need to switch to FPCs bindings. I don't support Windows and I have my own bindings where I don't even have to load extensions. I just check the string if the functionality is there and if so use it. I was just thinking that it would be a better idea to not do double work and therefor I am in the process of testing the FPC bindings. Unfortunately FPCs bindings are based on Delphi ones and all the limitations and annoyances I talk about originate from this fact. If you are a Windows user you will not notice much trouble as under Windows it is the normal way of using OpenGL (in any programming language). If you are not a windows user it is a major PITA. > Chaning the binding might also break some existing code written with using it. May be. If this is a problem and nothing shall be changed then I am just wasting my time here. Tell me and I am back to my own stuff. S. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
