Response to Issue#32. #75
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Minor changes for my own sake. Not really important
First, There is no need for 'if constructs' inside the @Property decorators (getter functions). They will simply increase the overhead of checking that condition each time the function is called. All the assignment can be done the constructor itself.
Timestamp can be left as an integer. And it can be interpreted as `datetime.datetime()` object when required to be printed. This is because keeping it as an integer it can be converted into other timestamp formats like the SAS Timestamp format that starts with January 1, 1960, unlike the UNIX Time. In this way, this parser can be used with other software also.
Similar to `block_header.py`, `if constructs` are not needed in the `getter methods`. All those assignments can be done in the constructor itself.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
My response to Issue#32 regarding more use of
struct.unpack()function. Please review