On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:52:51AM +0200, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 2017-03-29 9:43 GMT+02:00 Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me>:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:31:57AM +0200, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> >> 2017-03-28 17:31 GMT+02:00 Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me>:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:51:54AM +0200, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> >> >> ---
> >> >> doc/APIchanges | 4 ++++
> >> >> libavutil/avutil.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> >> >> libavutil/utils.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >> libavutil/version.h | 2 +-
> >> >> 4 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I'll start pushing that patchset tomorrow if I see no objection.
> >>
> >> > +#define av_4cc2str(fourcc)
> >> > av_fourcc_make_string((char[AV_FOURCC_MAX_STRING_SIZE]){0}, fourcc)
> >>
> >> Sorry, I really don't understand:
> >> If the preferred name for this function is "av_4cc2str", why not name
> >> it av_4cc2str()?
> >>
> >
> > I don't understand your question: are you asking why there is a macro
> > and a function with different names?
>
> Yes, why is a function with the preferred name not sufficient?
> Because we save the user the need to create a buffer thanks the compound literal in the macro which can only exist in a macro. It's exactly like av_ts2str(). -- Clément B.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
