L'octidi 18 thermidor, an CCXXV, Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > This is ambigous and if interpreted litterally > then even a scale=320:240 would no longer be guranteed to work > but would require scale=width=320:height=240 to be used.
That is intentional. Note that w=320:h=240 is enough: four characters more. > the shorthand is widely used and convenient It is convenient, but not absolutely necessary. Once in a script, the extra function names make it more readable and more robust anyway. > That way anything that works will contine to work and one cannot > mistakly write a script that uses unstable shorthand options Remember that "anything that works will continue to work" is opposed to "we can add new features without being burdened by past mistakes". Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
