>> That said, if you (Hendrik, Vittorio, Kieran) _really_ cannot stand _32 >> for the function returning unsigned, that could be dropped, for the 63 >> bits one I'd rather keep _63 instead of having "_long" as naming. >> >> The functions would then be >> >> unsigned int bitstream_read() >> >> uint64_t bitstream_read_63() >> >> unsigned int bitstream_peek() >> >> uint64_t bitstream_peek_63() >> >> int bitstream_read_signed() >> >> Would that be an acceptable compromise? >> >> > No, it would be inconsistent which is even worse. > Kieran What's inconsistent about this
I like the bitstream_read() /peek idea and I wouldn't mind bitstream_read/peek_long() for up to 63 reading. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
