On 5/28/2025 9:33 PM, Mark Filipak wrote:
On 29/05/2025 00.26, Carl Zwanzig wrote:
On 5/28/2025 2:37 PM, Mark Filipak wrote:
There are probably extremely few instances where a name would
rationally
be reused;
Name even a single such instance, Carl. Name reuse to a better filter
could be covered by the
documentation.
Your mission is failed.
My challenge was to Carl.
Nope, it's your assertion (to reuse), you defend it.
I have nothing to defend.
Then your assertions are without merit.
Experience tells us that name reuse for different functionality does
not end well.
What about for the same functionality? as is the case here.
(That was not stated in the original, the opposite was implied.)
Then it's not reusing the name, is it? (It is not.) If you reimpliment a
feature/function from scratch but with similar options and a similar
goal, it would usually make sense to use the same name and _document_
any differences from the previous implementation. (This is standard
software practice, has been for years.)
OTOH if you use the same name for a completely different operation, you
end up with a lot of annoyed users.
As for "it ought to be documented", then get with it;
How?
That was in the same paragraph as your excerpt.
ffmpeg is open source- you can download the source, make patches,
Get serious.
I was and am quite serious, why do you think otherwise? _You_ are the
one who wants doc changes but appear unwilling to even lift a finger to
help with that. Heck, you don't even make suggestions of what text to
change or what they should say.
z!
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
