[FFmpeg-cvslog] r17316 - trunk/libavformat/avformat.h

Robert Swain robert.swain
Sun Feb 15 18:55:34 CET 2009


2009/2/15 Stefano Sabatini <stefano.sabatini-lala at poste.it>:
> On date Sunday 2009-02-15 17:52:20 +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 05:10:17PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 05:07:32PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:04:09AM +0100, stefano wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Log:
>> > > > Document av_iformat_next() and av_oformat_next() functions.
>> > > >
>> > > > --- trunk/libavformat/avformat.h        Sun Feb 15 10:03:47 2009        (r17315)
>> > > > +++ trunk/libavformat/avformat.h        Sun Feb 15 10:04:08 2009        (r17316)
>> > > > @@ -687,7 +687,18 @@ extern AVInputFormat *first_iformat;
>> > > >
>> > > > +/**
>> > > > + * If f is NULL, returns the first registered input format,
>> > > > + * if f is non-NULL, returns the registered input format next after f,
>> > > > + * or NULL if f is the last one.
>> > >
>> > > I think "next after" is ungrammatical, IIRC my suggestion was
>> > > "the next registered input format after f".
>
> I found many results with Google of "next after" used as a sort of
> preposition, but yes I agree the form:
> the next thing after X
> sounds nicer than:
> the thing next after X
>
> I'd like to hear the opinion of a native speaker.

For what you said above, a native speaker would use "the next thing
after". As for what phrasing is best for this comment, I don't know.
I'll have to look at the rest of the thread and make a suggestion.

Regards,
Rob




More information about the ffmpeg-cvslog mailing list