don't get me wrong. i appreciate the use of constants and i'm not ignorant of it's purposes. in the bti case 2 things came together. that's why i created a constants file in the bi module (did not exist in any implementation i had seen). the constant names / interpretations are somewhat wild, second i was better detecting problems without the constants, at that point all was about stabilising functionality. so the constants will now come back. in the bti case we just will have to live with a good amount of fantasy constants then.

On 31.01.2013, at 03:42, Eric89GXL <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In mne/fiff/raw.py:
> 
> >  
> > -    write_meas_info(fid, info, data_type=4)
> > +    write_meas_info(fid, info, data_type=data_type, reset_range=reset_range)
> Note that this used to be hard-coded as 4. @dengemann this is why I'd like you to use constant names in your new code -- if I hadn't been neck deep in FIFF constants from working on tweaking the raw reading last week, I wouldn't have immediately known this was a surrogate for FIFFT_FLOAT, and finding the related bug would have been significantly more difficult...
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
>