Sean,
Changing GDT_Byte to unsigned char is too big of a change, I guess? I can work with that.
GDT_Byte semantic is already unsigned char / uint8. What did you mean?
Is there any advantage to a GDT_UInt8 type that can't be changed by a PIXELTYPE option?
That would be super confusing if we had both GDT_Byte and GDT_UInt8 and they are not just simple aliases.
The PIXELTYPE option should die. The RFC proposes to make it die on the reading side (as a metadata item).
We could also make it die on the writing side as a creation option, but I didn't dare to do it right now and just propose this is considered a legacy deprecated way. Would certainly be something worth doing for a GDAL 4.0 if such thing ever happened.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 12:39 PM Even Rouault <notificati...@github.com> wrote:Ubyte (same as uint8) vs byte? what do you suggest exactly: keep GDT_Byte in the enumeration and add |#define GDT_UByte GDT_Byte| to create the alias ? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/6633#issuecomment-1307736762>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAIHIKG7X65SX4OULJMUFTWHKT5TANCNFSM6AAAAAAR2E6MJY>. You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: <OSGeo/gdal/pull/6633/c1307736...@github.com> -- Sean Gillies _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
-- http://www.spatialys.com My software is free, but my time generally not.
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
