On 20/11/14 07:03, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Luca Barbato (2014-11-19 22:18:41)
>> On 19/11/14 18:42, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> For public function sure, for small utility functions that will change
>> totally in the next month or two, I'd say *discussing* is overkill.
>>
>>> A better grouping could be
>>>
>>> ff_ + ${object} + _ + ${action}
>>>
>>> so that all functions pertaining to the same group are listed closely
>>> together.
>>> Eg. ff_packet_combine, ff_packet_destroy etc, rather than
>>> ff_get_packet, ff_get_frame, ff_get_somethingelse
>>
>> Sounds good, please write down a wiki page about it so we won't have to
>> dig the mailing list for those =P
>>
>>> Having said that, i think that a ff_packet_combine2 is confusing to
>>> the user, can we find a better candidate name (in a sensible period of
>>> time)?
>>
>> We commonly use function() and function2() for the variant with
>> additional arguments.
>>
>
> Yay, a bikeshed! I prefer mine black with red stripes.
>
> How about 'ff_parser_combine_data()'?
>
I'm fine with it.
lu
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
