On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 12:30:22AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 05:16:23PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
My objection to upper bound on max_distance had nothing to do with size. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
and what is the terrible thing which will/could happen if there where an upper limit? i mean from the user or developer perspecitve (complexity, speed, overhead, ...)
I could just as well ask - what does the user/developer GAIN from there being an upper bound? yes, if there is no upper bound you can make a broken file, but you can ALWAYS make a broken/inefficient file if you are being deliberately ignorant...
not the idealist/philosopher perspective (its wrong, bad design, this is like <infamous container> does it, it will make <extreemly rare use case> slightly slower, ...)
To this same sentiment, I ask, what is gained from your new index system? You never replied to my rant.. Yes you did make it optional which makes it somewhat nicer, I am still annoyed by the index_ptr and the additional demuxer complexity for this index system (reallocing the syncpoint cache for each index chunk, reading several chunks...), mostly because I see absoloutely no gain. There's a pretty damn good chance that if the index is borked, the entire index is borked. not just a small piece of it. And the file still plays perfectly fine without the index... ("it will make <extreemly rare use case> slightly slower" ...) - ods15