Alex Beregszaszi <alex at fsn.hu> writes: > Hi, > >> > Since we have bytestream_put and _get which changes the pointer every >> > time, anyone against _change and _show which does the same, but without >> > advancing the pointer? >> >> are they needed for any code? if no theres no sense in adding them >> currently, also i dont like redundancy (LE/BE* / bytestream_show()) > > I'm doing some code, which needs this. Currently it has LES_8/16/32 for > writing such values, and LE_8/16/32 for reading. > > Which is better, adding LES_ or extending bytestream_ and replacing all > LE_ occurances too? Do not add anything with generic names like LE_*. -- M?ns Rullg?rd mru at inprovide.com
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4