On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, at 14:38, Alexander Strasser wrote: > On 2020-08-12 12:32 +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, at 00:29, Alexander Strasser wrote: > > > Definitions of non-obvious data should have a short comment > > > explaining their origin. > > > > > > If the data is of mathematical origin, you can document that > > > or use code snippets or pseudo-code. If the data was gained > > > empirically, describe the methods used. If the data was taken > > > from a document like a specification, reference the section > > > and/or table number. A link can also be used, if there is a > > > stable source and there are no better ways. > > > > > > If you generated the data with a program, consider including > > > the source code in FFmpeg and reference it in the comment. > > > > > > Typical examples are tables of numbers. Here is one: > > > > > > <nice example to be found and inserted> > > > > > > > > > I feel it could well be improved, though I wasn't able to do it > > > myself :( Maybe others can help. > > > > What about RE values? > > All in all it's same as Nicolas' proposal: The convention is to > document the origin of the data. It says should, which is not must.
SHOULD can mean "really mandatory, besides exceptions", so I would soften it, to explain common sense must be shared, like "if origin is mathematical or specification", or similar. But I like your version. -- Jean-Baptiste Kempf - President +33 672 704 734 _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
