No browserify requirement #9
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
|
Ya, this seems reasonable. Revert 43a758e (because changelog wasn't updated) and I'll merge it :) |
|
Reverted. |
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I love browserify, but, in this case we gain very little from forcing our API to use it.
Infact, I'd wager that for many use cases, the user might not even need the
BufferAPI for what they intend to use the decode for.Therefore, IMHO, it is better to put that responsibility on the user and just give back what we are working with internally, an
Array.This would require a version bump to
2.0.0though.@jprichardson thoughts?