[Ffmpeg-devel] Naming conventions

Baptiste Coudurier baptiste.coudurier
Tue Mar 6 16:04:48 CET 2007


Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 03:41:53PM +0100, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> 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!
>>>
>> Kinda, well let's stop using C and let's use a language which supports
>> set_timebase().avstream
> 
> typedef struct X{
>     AVStream avstream;
> }X;
> 
> X set_timebase(void){
>     ...
> }
> 

.....
Does that have the effect of setting timebase of an AVStream struct ?
Mans spoke already.

-- 
Baptiste COUDURIER                              GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA
SMARTJOG S.A.                                    http://www.smartjog.com
Key fingerprint                 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
Phone: +33 1 49966312




More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list