On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Vittorio Giovara <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Luca Barbato <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 18/11/14 09:16, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Luca Barbato <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 18/11/14 00:57, Kieran Kunhya wrote: >>>>>> I added ff_combine_packet since it reduces the number of lines >>>>>> and makes the code slightly less verbose. >>>>> >>>>> This is very confusing since ff_combine_packet suggests an AVPacket is >>>> involved. >>>> >>>> It will and it is not less confusing that using "frame" since it is a >>>> frame-worth-packet what you get out of this machinery anyway. >>>> >>>> >>> But since you are introducing new API, an argument like "the old API also >>> was confusing, so this one might as well be" is really not something you >>> should be using. ;) >>> Dispense with the confusion in the new API! >> >> It is *less* confusing, that's the whole point. > > Since this is just a name replacement, can anyone suggest a better > name for both functions?
On IRC we were suggested ff_try_combine_frame(), does this name appeal to everyone? If so, I'll start queueing the cosmetics first and then resend the renamed patches. -- Vittorio _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
