[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Change option description text to match option name in avcodec/options.c

[Måns Rullgård]

Rodney Baker <rodney.baker at iinet.net.au> writes:

> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 04:10:24 Martin Storsj? wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Rodney Baker wrote:
>> > $subj
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Index: libavcodec/options.c
>> > ===================================================================
>> > --- libavcodec/options.c	(revision 23424)
>> > +++ libavcodec/options.c	(working copy)
>> > @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@
>> > 
>> >  {"very", "strictly conform to a older more strict version of the spec or
>> >  reference software", 0, FF_OPT_TYPE_CONST, FF_COMPLIANCE_VERY_STRICT,
>> >  INT_MIN, INT_MAX, V|D|E, "strict"}, {"strict", "strictly conform to all
>> >  the things in the spec no matter what consequences", 0,
>> >  FF_OPT_TYPE_CONST, FF_COMPLIANCE_STRICT, INT_MIN, INT_MAX, V|D|E,
>> >  "strict"}, {"normal", NULL, 0, FF_OPT_TYPE_CONST, FF_COMPLIANCE_NORMAL,
>> >  INT_MIN, INT_MAX, V|D|E, "strict"},
>> > 
>> > -{"inofficial", "allow unofficial extensions", 0, FF_OPT_TYPE_CONST,
>> > FF_COMPLIANCE_INOFFICIAL, INT_MIN, INT_MAX, V|D|E, "strict"},
>> > +{"inofficial", "allow inofficial extensions", 0, FF_OPT_TYPE_CONST,
>> > FF_COMPLIANCE_INOFFICIAL, INT_MIN, INT_MAX, V|D|E, "strict"},
>> > 
>> >  {"experimental", "allow non standardized experimental things", 0,
>> >  FF_OPT_TYPE_CONST, FF_COMPLIANCE_EXPERIMENTAL, INT_MIN, INT_MAX, V|D|E,
>> >  "strict"}, {"b_qoffset", "qp offset between P and B frames",
>> >  OFFSET(b_quant_offset), FF_OPT_TYPE_FLOAT, 1.25, -FLT_MAX, FLT_MAX,
>> >  V|E}, {"er", "set error detection aggressivity",
>> >  OFFSET(error_recognition), FF_OPT_TYPE_INT, FF_ER_CAREFUL, INT_MIN,
>> >  INT_MAX, A|V|D, "er"},
>> 
>> Wasn't this changed recently (in rev 21473 in January), with the
>> motivation that unofficial is the correct spelling? The name of the option
>> was left unchanged in order not to break existing apps using this
>> parameter name.
>> 
>
> I initially thought this too - in fact, I was going to propose a patch to 
> correct the spelling of the option but decided against it for the same reason 
> - too many breakages.
>
> Then I checked Webster's Unabridged Dictionary only to discover that 
> "inofficial" is actually more semantically correct (even though it is rather 
> archaic and seems to have largely fallen from use.

Yes, both forms are considered correct.  However, in modern usage,
unofficial far outweighs inofficial.  The options should probably have
been named "unofficial" to begin with, but it's too late for that now.
We could of course add an alias, with risk of confusing people
further.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com