I see from your other reply; interesting. What is the objective of that rewrite? Not that it needs one, it's fine to do things for fun or as a learning exercise.
Cheers, PS off-list reply moved back to list On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 at 19:35, Mark Filipak <markfilipak.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/06/2025 14.08, Rob Hallam wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 at 18:33, Mark Filipak > > <markfilipak.imdb-at-gmail....@ffmpeg.org> wrote: > >> > >> On 11/06/2025 11.48, Rob Hallam wrote: > >>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 at 02:45, Mark Filipak wrote: > >>> > >>>> Apparently, the people that I meant to reach have not been reached. So, > >>>> in order to gain > >>>> credibility, I'm going to show you what I did for 25 years. > >>> > >>> This is the user list. Did/do you intend to reach the ffmpeg developers? > >> > >> Yes, I did, Rob. I've applied to ffmpeg-devel three times in the last week > >> and got no response. > > > > It is unfortunate you were discounted, but given the venue I am not > > sure what we can achieve. > > > > I say this not to discourage you but with an eye on where the > > discussion is likely to go, > > > > - debates over what 'trial-and-error coding' is/means/how it works > > (has already happened) > > - pros and cons of FSM ( / FSA / DFA) > > - bugs in ffmpeg and how critical those are > > - debates about how well fieldmatch works (and its friend ↓) > > - debates about how well documented fieldmatch is > > - debates about other filters > > - ... etc ... > > > > None of these bring you closer to what I presume -- please correct me > > if I'm wrong -- is your goal: a rewrite of some part of ffmpeg > > implemented in an FSM. > > > > Bearing in mind the audience: what can we concretely do, in your view? > > Help me with 'C'. Conduct design reviews of what I write. > > > _______________________________________________ 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".
