[MPlayer-dev-eng] Re: [PATCH] Clean up demuxers

[Daniel Egger]

A'rpi wrote:

> could you explain, why 
> - you changed int to unsigned int?

 Because it's cleaner and leaves the compiler with more optimisation
 opportunities.

> - renamed variable demuxer to demux (resulting big cosmetics patch)

 To find all offending places.

> - added static array to demuxer.h ?

Because it was formerly only used by demuxer.c but now isn't anymore
(whyever) and thus is global.

> i really don't like this patch. it has no real value but does big cosmetics
> changes which is not welcomed here.

This makes me curious. From reading most of the code one can clearly see
that this is a lot of cut'n'paste work from a guy who has cleary little
programming experience. Sorry, but its such a rubbish in parts that I
already though about giving programming lessons here. Any cleanup should
be well appreciated if it also contains functionality changes which my
patch clearly provides.

Love it or leave it. Run my code through your code uglifier if you can't
stand some programming but I will NOT ever write obfuscated source just
to match someones personal ego.

> anyway, you're right in one thing: that big switch(){...} is not good, and
> slow. it was added when there were 3 demuxers... now there are 18...
> anyway, i don't like the method you used to solve this. why don't we simply
> use a function pointer?

Don't ask me. My job is optimisation and cleanup and not swinging the
big crystal orb. If you can do it cleanly and it will lead to the same
speed I'm fully satisfied and will go back from where I came from.

> By principe I find this good but in practice you have missed some points.
> including RTFM patches.txt

I read the fscking patches.txt but fail to see your point here.

-- 
Servus,
       Daniel