[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] *put_bits_* functions renamings

[Ramiro Polla]

2009/4/12 M?ns Rullg?rd <mans at mansr.com>:
> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:52:35AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>>> On date Friday 2009-04-10 18:53:22 +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd encoded:
>>> > Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
>>> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 05:22:23PM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>>> > >> the new name is consistent with the name for which a function should
>>> > >> be prefixed (rather than suffixed) by a prefix telling the namespace
>>> > >> to which it applyies, it is also consistent with all the other
>>> > >> put_bits_* functions and more grep-friendly.
>>> > >
>>> > > iam rather used to flush_put_bits() so iam mildly against the rename
>>> > > that is unless several other devels want the rename
>>> >
>>> > All the other functions are put_bits_*, and we have get_bits_*. ?I'm
>>> > in favour of renaming it to keep things consistent.
>>>
>>> Actually this is my complete evil plan for the *put_bits* functions:
>>>
>>> init_put_bits ? ? ? ? ? ?-> ?put_bits_init
>>> put_bits_count ? ? ? ? ? -> ?put_bits_count
>>> flush_put_bits ? ? ? ? ? -> ?put_bits_flush
>>> align_put_bits ? ? ? ? ? -> ?put_bits_align
>>> ff_put_string ? ? ? ? ? ?-> ?put_bits_string (put_bits_put_string?)
>>> ff_copy_bits ? ? ? ? ? ? -> ?put_bits_copy
>>> put_bits ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -> ?put_bits
>>> pbBufPtr ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -> ?put_bits_get_buf_ptr (put_bits_buf_ptr?)
>>> skip_put_bits ? ? ? ? ? ?-> ?put_bits_skip
>>> skip_put_bytes ? ? ? ? ? -> ?put_bits_skip_bytes
>>> set_put_bits_buffer_size -> ?put_bits_set_buffer_size
>>> put_sbits ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?-> ?put_bits_signed? (I still have to read the function...)
>>>
>>> So the idea basically is to prefix all the functions with "put_bits",
>>> and try to follow consistent naming rules, with eventual variations
>>> with respect to the above table to accomodate devels
>>> preferences/suggestions.
>>>
>>> Also I don't think it would make sense to rename just few functions,
>>> since the idea was to provide a consistent functions set.
>>
>> i prefer to keep the functions named as they are.
>
> I would like to see those names made more consistent. ?With the
> current names it's hard to find something if you don't know the exact
> name.

FWIW I'm also in favour of making the names more consistent.

Ramiro Polla