On Wed, 4 May 2016 at 18:10 Alexandra Hájková <alexandra.khirn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> That said, if you (Hendrik, Vittorio, Kieran) _really_ cannot stand _32 > >> for the function returning unsigned, that could be dropped, for the 63 > >> bits one I'd rather keep _63 instead of having "_long" as naming. > >> > >> The functions would then be > >> > >> unsigned int bitstream_read() > >> > >> uint64_t bitstream_read_63() > >> > >> unsigned int bitstream_peek() > >> > >> uint64_t bitstream_peek_63() > >> > >> int bitstream_read_signed() > >> > >> Would that be an acceptable compromise? > >> > >> > > No, it would be inconsistent which is even worse. > > Kieran > What's inconsistent about this > > I like the bitstream_read() /peek idea and I wouldn't mind > bitstream_read/peek_long() for up to 63 reading. > > _long is fine, the numbers in the function name are what I object to. Kieran _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
