On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Bodecs Bela wrote:

[...]

It can be anything if it does not change existing behaviour, a complex specifier can be split to basic specifiers without worrying about the syntax of the basic specifier and if there is a well defined rule for escaping special characters. Also if it is readable to the user, that is a plus.

The exact solution can be a bit about personal taste as well, but maybe something like

(specifier)(specifier)

I like this version. So, there would be the original case: specifier, and if you want to use more specifier, you should put each of them into parenthesis (round brackets): (specifier)(specifier)
I think it really won't break any current code

Yes, exactly.


+specifier+specifier

I think () is more readible and rarely used in specifiers. If it is ok for you and others I would implement it.

Ok, it's fine by me.

Thanks,
Marton



can work and is readable. Knowing that you are dealing with a complex expression also means that the special characters separating the basic specifiers needs escaping, I guess av_get_token can be used to get the proper unescaped basic specifiers when parsing the complex one.

Regards,
Marton
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

best regards,

bb

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Reply via email to