Sean,
Le 09/11/2022 à 01:08, Sean Gillies a écrit :
Argh, I typed "unsigned char" when I meant "signed". Changing GDT_Byte
to *signed char* is too big of a change, I guess?
I don't believe that would be something reasonable to consider. The
impact of such a change would be huge on the GDAL
Even,
Argh, I typed "unsigned char" when I meant "signed". Changing GDT_Byte to
*signed char* is too big of a change, I guess?
I like the plan for PIXELTYPE.
Sorry about the noise, everybody!
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 5:04 PM Even Rouault
wrote:
> Sean,
>
>
> Changing GDT_Byte to unsigned char
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
Sorry, please disregard my previous email (from my phone at lunch). I had a
poor recollection of the GDALDataType enum.
Changing GDT_Byte to unsigned char is too big of a change, I guess? I can
work with that.
Is there any advantage to a GDT_UInt8 type that can't be changed by a
PIXELTYPE
