On 07/13/2010 11:13 PM, Sebastian Vater wrote:
Vitor Sessak a écrit :
On 07/13/2010 10:19 PM, Sebastian Vater wrote:
Vitor Sessak a écrit :
On 07/11/2010 10:07 PM, Sebastian Vater wrote:
/**
* Envelope structure used by instruments to apply volume / panning
* or pitch manipulation according to an user defined waveform.
* New fields can be added to the end with minor version bumps.
* Removal, reordering and changes to existing fields require a major
* version bump.
*/
typedef struct AVSequencerEnvelope {
Why not just
typedef struct {
?
This is a point, where I'm not sure right now:
Is typedef struct { .. } AVSequencerEnevelope;
exactly the same as:
typedef struct AVSequencerEnvelope { .. } AVSequencerEnvelope;
No. With
typedef struct AVSequencerEnvelope { .. } AVSequencerEnvelope;
both
func() {
struct AVSequencerEnvelope a;
}
and
func() {
AVSequencerEnvelope a;
}
compile with no errors while with
typedef struct { .. } AVSequencerEnevelope;
only
AVSequencerEnvelope a;
is valid. I don't think allowing two similar redundant types are a
good idea.
I prefer let the programmer accessing the structures the way:
Some prefer to write:
struct AVSequencerEnvelope a;
and some just:
AVSequencerEnvelope a;
Also the structs seen in FFmpeg use the way I use now, so I thought, to
be compatible with remaining FFmpeg I should do the same.
Ugh, indeed (and we risk to start a bikeshed thread) ;)
Original TuComposer didn't even use typedef's at all, the only way to
access them was a struct TuComposerInstrEnvelope, etc.
I also prefer the way to provide the target programmer more freedom than
shrinking it, despite the fact that writing the header the way I did
doesn't require much amount of time.
This, however, is just a target-programmer-user-friendly purpose and
wouldn't interfere with player.c by changing that, since I replaced all
struct AVSequencer* with simply AVSequencer*
However, changing that again, would require extra work by additionally
making it a bit uncomfortable to target programmers. So if you are not
piecy on this, I would keep is it at now, I will leave that decision
completely to you, though. If you want me to remove that, I'll do.
Leave it as is. Maybe it is just my personal taste and not very
important ATM.
-Vitor
_______________________________________________
FFmpeg-soc mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-soc
