On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giov...@gmail.com> wrote: > This should make these APIs simpler to use, and less error prone > in case the caller does not check they are valid, and makes them > more similar to other naming APIs. > --- > This should help in the bug in avprobe found by Luca. > Sending as RFC since I believe we are allowed to break this API as we > did the version bump, but I'd like to be sure. >
I prefer returning NULL, its a clear indicator of no name being present, and allows the caller to just not show this field at all. As a side-effect, it allows these APIs to actually be used to check the validity of the values, since invalid values have no name (and strcmp'ing the resul is not quite handy). If one caller has a problem with a NULL return, it should perhaps be fixed in the caller. - Hendrik _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
