Add method to expose underlying Frame C struct #44
Conversation
frame.go
Outdated
| @@ -213,3 +213,7 @@ func (f *Frame) Unref() { | |||
| func (f *Frame) MoveRef(src *Frame) { | |||
| C.av_frame_move_ref(f.c, src.c) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func (f *Frame) Inner() unsafe.Pointer { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you rename this function to UnsafePointer?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As discussed below, if we were to return *C.struct_AVFrame, do you still recommend calling the method UnsafePointer? I do not have a particular preference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thing is I want developers to understand that once they use this method they're on their own and this library could present chaotic behavior. Therefore I want to prefix this new method with Unsafe, and thought Pointer was clear enough to explain what it does. If you have another idea for the suffix, let me know.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That was a fair consideration. Again, I don't have a particular preference, so let's go with UnsafePointer.
frame.go
Outdated
| @@ -213,3 +213,7 @@ func (f *Frame) Unref() { | |||
| func (f *Frame) MoveRef(src *Frame) { | |||
| C.av_frame_move_ref(f.c, src.c) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func (f *Frame) Inner() unsafe.Pointer { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason why we wouldn't want to return a *C.struct_AVFrame here? 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess it was just a matter of my preference. Now that I think about it, returning *C.struct_AVFrame does offer more clarity and type safety. So let's go with that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I honestly don't know whether returning *C.struct_AVFrame is a bad idea, but it feels better so let's go with that 👍
|
@asticode All fixes implemented |
|
Thanks for the PR! ❤️ |
This PR address issue #43