[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 7/8] fftools/ffmpeg_demux: implement -bsf for input

[Anton Khirnov]

Quoting Stefano Sabatini (2024-01-21 20:15:46)
> On date Sunday 2024-01-21 19:35:01 +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Stefano Sabatini (2024-01-21 19:22:35)
> > > On date Sunday 2024-01-21 18:43:36 +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > > Quoting Stefano Sabatini (2024-01-20 12:32:42)
> > > [...]
> > > > > When you present an example you usually start with an explanation
> > > > > (what it does) and then present the command, not the other way around.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't, neither does most literature I can recall. Typically you first
> > > > present a thing, then explain its structure. Explaning the structure of
> > > > something the reader has not seen yet is backwards, unnatural, and hard
> > > > to understand.
> > > 
> > > I still don't understand what "literature" you are referring to.
> > 
> > Various manuals and textbooks I've read.
> > 
> > > If you see most examples in the FFmpeg docs they are in the form:
> > 
> 
> > Our documentation is widely considered to be somewhere between atrocious
> > and unusable
> 
> nah, it's not so bad, also this applies to most documentation
> 
> Besides FFmpeg is possibly the most sophisticated existing toolkit in
> terms of features/configuration, so this is somehow expected (at least
> if you expect a tutorial rather than a reference).

I wouldn't be so sure. E.g. Qt has a bigger and more complex API than
ours, yet its documentation is more complete and coherent.

> > (and sometimes actively misleading), so the fact that it
> > does something in a specific way does not at all mean that it's a good
> > idea.
> 
> So what do you propose instead? The fact that it is not perfect does
> not mean that everything is bad.

I'm not saying everything is bad. I'm saying this specific way of
writing examples is bad and should be changed. Which is what I'm doing
in this patch.

-- 
Anton Khirnov