[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] MMX for Win64
Wed May 7 12:16:30 CEST 2008
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
>> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:27:57AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>> Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>>> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>>>> There are good reasons not to use typedefs for structs (or pointers).
>>>>> I avoid doing it in new code.
>>>> Oh, can you please elaborate a little ? Im really interested in knowing why.
>>> Extrapolate from there.
>> Well, the thing that is the major claim, namely 'Lots of people think
>> that typedefs "help readability". Not so.' is not exactly convincing.
>> Luckily it's usually only one function argument that is a struct, but
>> if only considering readability I find
>>> int function(actx_t *a, bctx_t *b, cctx_t *c);
>> much better than
>>> int function(struct actx *a, struct bctx *b, struct cctx *c);
>> because the "struct"s use up a lot of space without adding any useful
> But they do add information.
Useless information IMHO, it is fairly obvious and quickly verifiable
what "AVCodecContext" is. AFAIK C++ even got rid of this by making
"struct" optional in parameters/vars declarations.
> A function argument of type pointer to int
> is usually used to return a value, whereas a pointer to struct is commonly
> used for both input and output values. The point is, immediately seeing
> that something is a struct, without searching for a definition, is often
> helpful, especially to other people than the author of the code.
Well If I follow your reasonment, you should agree to put comments for
people not really knowing C, which explains exactly what the code does,
after all they aren't the author of the code and it is helpful for other
> That you
> don't find it useful, doesn't mean that others do not.
Baptiste COUDURIER GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA
Smartjog USA Inc. http://www.smartjog.com
Key fingerprint 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
More information about the ffmpeg-devel