More chrono::Duration usage in the API
#375
Merged
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
ramsayleung
approved these changes
Dec 28, 2022
marioortizmanero
force-pushed
the
more-chrono-duration
branch
from
39b350e to
a77a7bc
Compare
2 tasks
|
This is a breaking change, so the major version should have been bumped. Introducing it in a patch version is really not good. |
|
Yes, it should be. I would like to release a new version |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
This uses more
chrono::Durationin the API, as opposed to the more basici32andu32. It also renames some fields topositionfromposition_msMotivation and Context
I noticed this in #366; using
chrono::Durationis more versatile and idiomatic. Not sure if I missed any cases.Dependencies
Nothing new.
Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
How has this been tested?
CI still passes
Is this change properly documented?
Yes