On date Saturday 2025-03-01 10:01:58 +0000, softworkz wrote: [...] > +int avtext_context_open(AVTextFormatContext **ptctx, const AVTextFormatter > *formatter, AVTextWriterContext *writer, const char *args, > + const struct AVTextFormatSection *sections, int > nb_sections, > + int show_value_unit, > + int use_value_prefix, > + int use_byte_value_binary_prefix, > + int use_value_sexagesimal_format, > + int show_optional_fields, > + char *show_data_hash);
writer -> writer_ctx? I'm fine with changing this later to avoid massive rebase edits. Also I notice there is some of the usual inconsistencies here: av_X_Y against avXY and avX_Y that we have in the rest of the code. Maybe let's stick to avX_Y or to av_X_Y. Also this might be: av_text_format_open(...) av_text_format_close(...) av_text_format_print_X(...) Or to simplify we can just call the structure AVTextContext (I see text as an evolution of a string, meant for structured formatted data, which is implied by the fact that we need a formatter) and simplify related functions naming to: av_text_open(...) av_text_close(...) av_text_print_X(...) av_text_formatter_... av_text_writer_open... av_text_writer_close... In fact I don't think there is much gain in keeping "context" in the name of the functions. What do you think? Again, since this is not public API (yet?) this should not be considered a blocker (also I've been out of touch with FFmpeg and I might be not aware of API conventions evolution). _______________________________________________ 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".
