On Wednesday 23 July 2008 21:18:57 Chris Robinson wrote:
Maybe it would be better if the table was changed to have a bit offset and a mask size, instead of the actual mask.
0) initial patch used "mask size" + "mask offset", but was rewritten to use mask value when Stefan Dösinger requested that. I don't want to rewrite it back to use mask size + mask offset. 1) mask size and offset can be extracted from mask value. 2) using mask instead of "mask size" + "mask offset" requires less function arguments and smaller format table, although, yes there is a higher chance of producing errors.