On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 01:11:07PM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:39:02PM +0100, Moritz Barsnick wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 23:26:44 +0100, Paul B Mahol wrote: > >> > >> In addition to Ganesh's comments: > >> > >> > +@item amount > >> > +Set modulation. Define how much of original signal is affected by the > >> > LFO. > >> [...] > >> > +@item width > >> > +Set pulse width. > >> > >> I would appreciate ranges for both od these. I would guess them being > >> [0..1] (and I coould read the code), but who knows. > >> > > > > or do ffmpeg -h filter=apulsator > > I thought the common idiom was to document these ranges twice, i.e in > both the docs and implicitly in the code via the options table? >
yes, i was just suggesting a simpler way than reading the code. I'd love to have most of the current documentation generated from this doc though. The current redundancy is annoying/problematic. -- Clément B.
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel