On 4/20/17 5:45 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Vittorio Giovara > <[email protected]> wrote: >> This should make these APIs simpler to use, and less error prone >> in case the caller does not check they are valid, and makes them >> more similar to other naming APIs. >> --- >> This should help in the bug in avprobe found by Luca. >> Sending as RFC since I believe we are allowed to break this API as we >> did the version bump, but I'd like to be sure. >> > > I prefer returning NULL, its a clear indicator of no name being > present, and allows the caller to just not show this field at all. > As a side-effect, it allows these APIs to actually be used to check > the validity of the values, since invalid values have no name (and > strcmp'ing the resul is not quite handy). > > If one caller has a problem with a NULL return, it should perhaps be > fixed in the caller.
A patch for it is already there, the question is more about what's consistent and what's not to me. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
