[FFmpeg-user] Rewriting 'fieldmatch' using the State Machine Method

[Rob Hallam]

I see from your other reply; interesting. What is the objective of
that rewrite? Not that it needs one, it's fine to do things for fun or
as a learning exercise.

Cheers,

PS off-list reply moved back to list

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 at 19:35, Mark Filipak <markfilipak.imdb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/06/2025 14.08, Rob Hallam wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 at 18:33, Mark Filipak
> > <markfilipak.imdb-at-gmail.com at ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/06/2025 11.48, Rob Hallam wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 at 02:45, Mark Filipak wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Apparently, the people that I meant to reach have not been reached. So, in order to gain
> >>>> credibility, I'm going to show you what I did for 25 years.
> >>>
> >>> This is the user list. Did/do you intend to reach the ffmpeg developers?
> >>
> >> Yes, I did, Rob. I've applied to ffmpeg-devel three times in the last week and got no response.
> >
> > It is unfortunate you were discounted, but given the venue I am not
> > sure what we can achieve.
> >
> > I say this not to discourage you but with an eye on where the
> > discussion is likely to go,
> >
> >    - debates over what 'trial-and-error coding' is/means/how it works
> > (has already happened)
> >    - pros and cons of FSM ( / FSA / DFA)
> >    - bugs in ffmpeg and how critical those are
> >    - debates about how well fieldmatch works (and its friend ↓)
> >    - debates about how well documented fieldmatch is
> >    - debates about other filters
> >    - ... etc ...
> >
> > None of these bring you closer to what I presume -- please correct me
> > if I'm wrong -- is your goal: a rewrite of some part of ffmpeg
> > implemented in an FSM.
> >
> > Bearing in mind the audience: what can we concretely do, in your view?
>
> Help me with 'C'. Conduct design reviews of what I write.
>
>
>