On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 21:57 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 06:28:21PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > > 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_*. > > what about > AV_<L|B><R|W><2|4|8> ? > > so that for example AV_BW4 would be a big endian 32bit write ... And you plan to remove the current bytestream_ stuff? I dont get the rationale in this. -- Alex Beregszaszi
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