[Ffmpeg-devel] Naming conventions

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Tue Mar 6 15:37:17 CET 2007


On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 03:26:37PM +0100, Michel Bardiaux wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >Hi
> >
> [snip]
> >
> >huh? what is facetious? me saying that the naming convention should clearly
> >say what type and action is or me pointing at cases where your
> >suggestion is ambiguous?
> >or are you trying to say that you have no real arguments?
> >or are you trying to say that you will decide all names based on unwritten
> >rules and everyone who doesnt understand you rules is facetious?
> *Now* we have reached flame temperature...


> >
> >also its funny that on nut-devel you where nitpicking that the spec wasnt
> >clear enough and now you attack my for trying to clarify a really ambiguous
> >single line suggestion of a nameing convention
> >
> Problem is, everyone has been beating around the bush trying to avoid 
> using 'the O word', but its a fact that C++ (or rather, OO methodology 
> in general) was developped with the goal of formalizing this issue. 
> Whether their solution was a good one is of course a different issue!

not everything from OO is necessarily bad, like not everything from M$
is necessarily bad, if later where the case M$ would gone bankrupt long
ago ...
but thats geting deeply off topic, lets rather concentrate on flames and
insults  ...


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
-- Diogenes of Sinope
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20070306/a15c3754/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list