On 05/05/16 07:54, Kieran Kunhya wrote: > On Wed, 4 May 2016 at 18:10 Alexandra Hájková <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> 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. >> >> > > _long is fine, the numbers in the function name are what I object to.
If nobody is against the this naming convention then let's go for it. lu _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
