[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Correct inttypes.h emulation for Visual Studio

Diego Biurrun diego
Mon Dec 4 12:37:41 CET 2006

On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 10:52:28AM +0100, Stefan Heinzmann wrote:
> --- M?ns Rullg?rd <mru at inprovide.com> wrote:
> > "Alexander Chemeris" <ipse.ffmpeg at gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> > > On 12/4/06, Mike Melanson <mike at multimedia.cx> wrote:
> > >> Alexander Chemeris wrote:
> > >> > I identify this as active hate, not as "not proactive
> > >> > support".
> > >> I suggest you refer back to your English as a Second (or Third?)
> > >> Language textbook because your definition is waaaaaay off. And
> > >> it's also offensive, to boot.
> > > Yes, my second is C++. And English is third. :)
> > > But I'm sure I say exactly what I want in here.
> > 
> > In that case, please go away now.  We don't want to talk
> > with you.
> Who is 'we'? The list? The orthodox ffmpeg purists as opposed
> to the M$-heretics? Or pluralis majestatis?

You did note that it was not the "orthodox ffmpeg purists" that started
flinging around terms like "hate" and similar when they were told that a
patch was rejected, didn't you?

How come that you will immediately get written of as "orthodox purist"
when you insist that a workaround has to be made in a general way, not
as a library-specific hack?  As a "gcc lover" when the problem has
nothing to do with gcc?  As a "Linux-only type" when the problem has
nothing to do with operating systems at all?  As "opposing portability"
when you insist on general (and thus really portable!) solutions instead
of system-specific bandaids?

Portable programming is not accumulating special cases for every
imaginable combination of CPU architecture, operating system and
development environment.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list