[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] *put_bits_* functions renamings

[Måns Rullgård]

Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:

> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:52:35AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> On date Friday 2009-04-10 18:53:22 +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd encoded:
>> > Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
>> > 
>> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 05:22:23PM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> > >> Hi all,
>> > >> 
>> > >> the new name is consistent with the name for which a function should
>> > >> be prefixed (rather than suffixed) by a prefix telling the namespace
>> > >> to which it applyies, it is also consistent with all the other
>> > >> put_bits_* functions and more grep-friendly.
>> > >
>> > > iam rather used to flush_put_bits() so iam mildly against the rename
>> > > that is unless several other devels want the rename
>> > 
>> > All the other functions are put_bits_*, and we have get_bits_*.  I'm
>> > in favour of renaming it to keep things consistent.
>> 
>> Actually this is my complete evil plan for the *put_bits* functions:
>> 
>> init_put_bits            ->  put_bits_init
>> put_bits_count           ->  put_bits_count
>> flush_put_bits           ->  put_bits_flush
>> align_put_bits           ->  put_bits_align
>> ff_put_string            ->  put_bits_string (put_bits_put_string?)
>> ff_copy_bits             ->  put_bits_copy
>> put_bits                 ->  put_bits
>> pbBufPtr                 ->  put_bits_get_buf_ptr (put_bits_buf_ptr?)
>> skip_put_bits            ->  put_bits_skip
>> skip_put_bytes           ->  put_bits_skip_bytes
>> set_put_bits_buffer_size ->  put_bits_set_buffer_size
>> put_sbits                ->  put_bits_signed? (I still have to read the function...)
>> 
>> So the idea basically is to prefix all the functions with "put_bits",
>> and try to follow consistent naming rules, with eventual variations
>> with respect to the above table to accomodate devels
>> preferences/suggestions.
>> 
>> Also I don't think it would make sense to rename just few functions,
>> since the idea was to provide a consistent functions set.
>
> i prefer to keep the functions named as they are.

I would like to see those names made more consistent.  With the
current names it's hard to find something if you don't know the exact
name.

At the very least, get rid of the hideous pbBufPtr.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com