Quoting Kieran Kunhya (2016-05-03 11:33:42) > On Tue, 3 May 2016 at 07:43 Luca Barbato <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 03/05/16 15:34, Kieran Kunhya wrote: > > > I disagree, the old names are relatively clear. Whilst I think the speed > > > improvements in this patch are great, the function names like > > bitstream_read_32 > > > are really confusing. IMO adding a number suffix should be the exception > > > rather than the norm (i.e when reading large numbers of bits). > > > > The past code shown that not having the number of bits would make people > > assume such functions work for the wrong range. > > > > The new functions support a larger range BUT I had bitten once too many > > to consider using _long for the 63 bits variant. > > > > Yes but reading > 32 bits isn't very common so it should be treated as the > special case. > All these _32s make things very very unreadable. I want the unusual cases > to have special suffixes.
I'm not buying those "common" vs "uncommon" arguments. Experience shows that people get it wrong all the time with the current code, so the new API should make it very explicit what limitation does each variant have. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
