Hi, On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:35:07PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Michael Niedermayer > <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > > wrote: > > > > > Signed value in > > > Unsigned > > > INTeger type > > > > [..] > > > Both SUINT and unsigned should produce identical binaries > > > > This seems to go against the rule that code should be as simple as > possible. > > > > Unsigned is simpler than SUINT if the outcome is the same. > > You can simply add the part of my mail here as awnser that you snipped > away: > > "But it makes the code hard to understand and maintain because these > values are not positive integers but signed integers. Which for > C standard compliance need to be stored in a unsigned type." > > A type that avoids the undefinedness of signed but is semantically > signed is correct, unsigned is not. > > If understandable code and maintainable code has no value to you, > you would favour using single letter variables exclusivly and would > never use typedef. > But you do not do that. > > I fail to understand why you insist on using unsigned in place of a > more specific type, it is not the correct nor clean thing to do. It's not just me, it appears to be most of us. Can't you just step back at some point and be like "ok, I'll let the majority have their way"? Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
