[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Remove "bufsize" OptionDef option
Mon Sep 18 11:34:59 CEST 2006
Op zondag 17 september 2006 16:47, schreef The Wanderer:
> But it also involves capitulating to the attempt to change the meaning
> of terminology, in the name of decreased imprecision. I'm normally all
> for being precise (ambiguity is one of my big bugaboos), but I find
> 'kibi' (etc.) to be simply abhorrent.
Why? I frankly only disliked it because it sounds stupid (which is a
terrible reason imho) and because I had gotten used to using 'k'
with the _wrong_ meaning, namely 1024. Although it is annoying to
change a habit after 15 years, I still think being precise is more
important then changing a habit.
> As far as I'm concerned, K/k/kilo as a prefix means 1024 when dealing
> with binary data of any type, and 1000 otherwise - period.
Well, frankly, I cannot agree with that. 'k' and kilo are defined by SI
and have defined meanings namely 1000, not 1024. The ones to blame are
the first people who started using 'k' as if it was equal to 1024. Just
because it was "close enough". They should have tried to find a new
set of prefixes, not reuse existing ones with an already defined meaning.
> equivalent is naturally true of the corresponding greater prefixes. The
> capitalization either is irrelevant, or indicates whether we're dealing
> with bytes or with bits.) Any software which enforces a different
> meaning is one I'm going to find highly irritating to use and be less
Same here. But IMHO for the wrong reasons. I find it irritating as I have
been attaching the _wrong_ meaning to the 'k', 'M' and 'G' postfixes for
15 years or something.
Maybe we should all just accept the annoyance and all start using Ki, Mi
and Gi postfixes, for the sake of the future generations! Do it for the kids!
;) How can they live in a world with this horrible ambguity!
> favorably inclined towards than I might be - and, by virtue of the fact
> that I don't like feeling upset and resentful about things I can't do
> anything about, one I'm not going to want to even *think* about more
> than I can readily avoid.
> As an almost complete non-contributor to FFmpeg, my opinion is of course
> almost entirely irrelevant for the moment. It exists nonetheless, and
> I've been biting my tongue reading this discussion long enough.
With friendly regards,
More information about the ffmpeg-devel