Teque5

@gmabey and if there are places in the code you are wondering about, just comment with a `?` or something and I'll do a quick summary. I hadn't looked at...

> Can you elaborate more on why you made the API change? The `validate()` functionality was originally written for v0.0.1 and was doing some un-pythonic things. Specifically it would either...

I've rebased the PR to v1.x and if someone reviews it @gmabey we can merge. This would increment version to v1.1.0 since the API changes for validation.

This will also enable the `float9` format @jacobagilbert really wants.

Yea I think this kind of tool is pretty useful. If it uses the intended entry points for `sigmf` then it should be maintainable. If we decide to accept this...

In my group we have discussed something like this for years, but anytime we sit down to brainstorm a nice way to parameterize signals in a parse-able fashion we can...

I think that the implementation suggested by @jacobagilbert can be achieved with the existing `core:generator` field. We would simply have to modify the spec to suggest that that field would...

I think this PR is ready.

Can we draw the website with an oscilloscope?

> But as `validate.py` is stuck-ish in some sort of fixed-but-not-pushed state (from what I gather from @Teque5 's comments in #186) I certainly don't want to derail progress on...