On 8/5/2017 1:42 PM, Nicolas George wrote: > L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, Michael Niedermayer a écrit : >> I think you do not realize how annoying this would be in practice >> >> Users do not know all these nuances that one syntax is stable and work >> and one works but is not future proof. It also violates the priniple of >> least surprise. Aka this fails one of the most fundamental rules of >> user interface design > > I think all competent users should realize that a shortcut is less > stable than the full notation.
Users may not know that it's a shortcut to begin with. > >> This comment makes me a bit sad. >> >> It implies that old code is bad without any solid fact, nothing one can >> proof, disproof, or fix. > > I am not saying that all the old code is bad. But do you want to imply > that all of it is good? As long as some of it is bas, we need to improve > it, and unconditional compatibility is an hindrance to that. > >> And thats not even related here, you >> didnt start by wanting to fix a mistake in the order, the changed order >> was a side effect of other work. > > Actually, the "other work" was fixing a mistake: implementing the > options in the individual filters. > >> also my suggestion was to define what is stable now and maintain that >> properly and disallow what is not stable. Have a clear interface and >> stick to it. >> >> Stable interfaces are important. > > Named options are stable. There is no need for anything more. > > Regards, > > > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list email@example.com http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel