Quoting Marton Balint (2024-02-13 21:27:34) > > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, James Almer wrote: > > > On 2/12/2024 6:15 PM, Marton Balint wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu> > >> --- > >> libavutil/channel_layout.h | 4 ++++ > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/libavutil/channel_layout.h b/libavutil/channel_layout.h > >> index b8bff6f365..db0c005e87 100644 > >> --- a/libavutil/channel_layout.h > >> +++ b/libavutil/channel_layout.h > >> @@ -146,6 +146,10 @@ enum AVChannelOrder { > >> * as defined in AmbiX format $ 2.1. > >> */ > >> AV_CHANNEL_ORDER_AMBISONIC, > >> + /** > >> + * Number of channel orders, not part of ABI/API > >> + */ > >> + AV_CHANNEL_ORDER_NB > >> }; > > > > Is it worth adding this to a public header just to limit a loop in a test? > > A > > loop that fwiw still depends on an array that needs to be updated with more > > names if you add new orders. > > Several other enums also have this. So API consistency can be considered > a more important factor.
I'd be concerned that many callers don't undertand the implications of "not part of the ABI". Maybe we should rename all of them to FF_ prefix to make it more clear callers should not use these? -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ 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".