New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
No longer use deprecated generators. #108
No longer use deprecated generators. #108
Conversation
@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@ | |||
{mode, max}. | |||
|
|||
{duration, 10}. | |||
{duration, 5}. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any reason to change this? I agree 10 min is too long :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That was a mistake. Nice catch.
Other changes looks good. +1 to merge. |
…n-warnings No longer use deprecated generators.
Hm, I'd meant to chime in with something, better late than never? Was the choice of 'int_to_bin_littleendian' for backward compatibility? Most folks are probably thinking that they should use the 'int_to_bin_bigendian' generator, to create keys like <<0,0,0,0,1>> through <<0,0,200,42>>, because only Intel x86 gearheads think that littleendian is normal. :-) |
Ah, I was under the impression that littleendian was the correct choice, because that was what the current Intel processors were, did I make a mistake? |
Oh crap, bigendian would be suitable because it preserves the order of On Wednesday, November 6, 2013, Christopher Meiklejohn wrote:
Sent from Gmail Mobile |
Should we revert? |
Not a strong opinion, but I think so. Sorry for wrong +1. On Wednesday, November 6, 2013, Christopher Meiklejohn wrote:
Sent from Gmail Mobile |
see #109. |
retry #108: No longer use deprecated generators.
No description provided.