On Thu, 5 May 2016 at 04:30 Luca Barbato <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
can we make it bitstream_read consistently then for all functions? Kieran _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
