Quoting Luca Barbato (2014-11-19 22:18:41)
> On 19/11/14 18:42, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
[...]
>
> For public function sure, for small utility functions that will change
> totally in the next month or two, I'd say *discussing* is overkill.
>
> > A better grouping could be
> >
> > ff_ + ${object} + _ + ${action}
> >
> > so that all functions pertaining to the same group are listed closely
> > together.
> > Eg. ff_packet_combine, ff_packet_destroy etc, rather than
> > ff_get_packet, ff_get_frame, ff_get_somethingelse
>
> Sounds good, please write down a wiki page about it so we won't have to
> dig the mailing list for those =P
>
> > Having said that, i think that a ff_packet_combine2 is confusing to
> > the user, can we find a better candidate name (in a sensible period of
> > time)?
>
> We commonly use function() and function2() for the variant with
> additional arguments.
>
Yay, a bikeshed! I prefer mine black with red stripes.
How about 'ff_parser_combine_data()'?
--
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
