On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 16:28, Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 2:37 PM Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > > > Vittorio Giovara (12019-01-04): > > > I personally disagree, what are coordinates within an AVFrame if not > the > > > length/size of an object in memory? > > > > That would be an argument for making AVFrame.width and AVFrame.height > > size_t. But they are not, and therefore these ROI values have no reason > > to be either. There is no point in being able to express ROI coordinates > > in the quadrillion when the size of the frame is bounded by much less. > > > > That seems a poor argument since the code base is so old that there are a > plethora of bad design decisions that should not dictate what choices are > made now. > Hence we should avoid making a new one now. Pixels shouldn't have the size_t type, it just makes things confusing. I fail to see how personal choice and silence for weeks constitute a good argument to keep things as they are. If merged, things will have to be kept the way they are for at least 2 years. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel