On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 14:36 -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Uoti Urpala <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 21:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >> If you insist on arguing, I politely request that you at least be right. > > > > If you get to that level of completely literal nitpicking, you could as > > well say that it's possible to "get those semantics using the regular > > Windows functions" by writing your own snprintf from scratch, while > > using the regular Windows functions for something other than doing the > > main formatting. I don't think that's a meaningful discussion any more > > though.
> And this discussion is so utterly useful as-is, right? Pointing out that the semantics of the posted patch do not match the intended semantics of the function in a case that is very much intended to be standard use does count as useful. Some of the following discussion with Måns is not practically "useful", but I don't consider that synonymous with meaningless. > I've asked this a few times now: please stay out of discussions on > MSVC support. You're not interested in it, you're not intending to > contribute to it or help out in any way, and you're not commonly a > Libav contributor who would provide constructive reviews, so to the > best of my definitions, you're just here to troll. Let's not. Leave it > to the people that care. I do consider my mail pointing out the problems to be a constructive review. It wasn't even really specific to MSVC. You'd apparently prefer sweeping any problems related to MSVC support under the carpet, but I don't think that justifies calling it unconstructive to point out such problems. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
