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

Diego Biurrun diego
Tue Apr 14 11:33:39 CEST 2009


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.

Diego



More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list