James Almer (12021-03-24): > I think it's clear by now that nothing i could say will convince you it's > better to not return a pointer to an internal array when there are safer > alternatives, and i already gave my reasons why, none of which satisfied > you, so i don't see the point in keeping this discussion going.
I find this comment quite offensive. You did not manage to convince me because your arguments have not been up to the task. Do not try to push the fault on me, and I will refrain from accusing you of not taking my arguments into account. Coming to an agreement is a process, it requires both parts to refine their arguments progressively. This is a matter of choosing the least of several drawbacks. So let us compare the drawbacks and not muddle things further. For me: 1. having a dynamic allocation is way way worse than 2. having sizeof(AVIndexEntry) in the ABI, which is somewhat worse than 3. having a function with many arguments, which is a tiny bit worse than 4. having a "use this pointer immediately" constraint. We agree except on 3>4, so let us focus on that. Option (3) has these practical drawbacks: Many arguments involves more typing and the risk of messing with the order and getting invalid values. It also requires redesigning the API if we add fields and exporting them is useful. And it requires either the overhead of NULL checks or the caller declaring unneeded variables. Option (4) has the obvious practical drawback that misusing the API causes undefined behavior. The constraint of using a pointer immediately on risk of undefined behavior is actually a frequent one, in FFmpeg but also in C at large: gethosbtyname, localtime, etc. For me, that makes it approximately on par with the risk of messing the order of the many arguments. Which leaves more typing, NULL checks overhead or useless variables (still more typing). It is tiny, I have no trouble admitting, but it is tiny in favor of one solution. If you do not agree with these estimates, please explain exactly where. > If some other developer wants to chime in and comment which approach they > prefer, then that would be ideal. Indeed. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
