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

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Tue Apr 14 13:25:29 CEST 2009


On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:33:39AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:56:20PM -0300, Ramiro Polla wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I tend to agree, consistent naming should pay off in the long run.

The names are largely consistent, what has been suggested above is
to change XYZ to ZYX naming
making things consistent within the current system is something i have
no problem with, what is suggested above is something i do have a
problem with, people are used to the naming writing all names backward
just makes no sense

also
stefano removes the _NEEDED_ ff prefixes (yeah its consistent just
   wrong)
the names become longer and they are names of commonly used functions
stefano makes them inconsistant with the rest of ffmpeg, s is commonly
   used as abbreviation for signed ...
and fixing above the only thing left is the reversing of words

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. -- Voltaire
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20090414/056408c2/attachment.pgp>



More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list