You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It would be nice if the default alphabet matched other implementations (such as
Their default alphabet is "123456789abcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ" (obviously a different interpretation of the Flicker Base58).
When we set the alphabet on this library to "123456789abcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ", it transparently resorts it to "123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz", which breaks compatibility.
Maybe a dont_sort=False parameter could be added to set_alphabet?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
* refactor: Add should_sort arg to set_alphabet
* feat: add should_sort kwarg to Django Field
* refactor: changes should_sort kwarg name and default value
* docs: Update README.md
It would be nice if the default alphabet matched other implementations (such as
Their default alphabet is "123456789abcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ" (obviously a different interpretation of the Flicker Base58).
When we set the alphabet on this library to "123456789abcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ", it transparently resorts it to "123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz", which breaks compatibility.
Maybe a dont_sort=False parameter could be added to set_alphabet?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: