Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24 📝 Original message:I agree, I believe the ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24
📝 Original message:I agree, I believe the first name that an op with equivalent functionality
had was simply op_maturity.
At least I remember we discussed such an opcode when discussing pegged
sidechains' design.
I kind of dislike the check_x_verify naming pattern. We want all new
operands to return if whatever they're checking/verifying fails, fine. Do
we have to repeat this redundant naming pattern forever due to that
discovery?
I hope not, but if that's the case my vote is for CMV.
As said before, I believe the documentation and code comments can become
much more clear with this change.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151124/5b9476f9/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:I agree, I believe the first name that an op with equivalent functionality
had was simply op_maturity.
At least I remember we discussed such an opcode when discussing pegged
sidechains' design.
I kind of dislike the check_x_verify naming pattern. We want all new
operands to return if whatever they're checking/verifying fails, fine. Do
we have to repeat this redundant naming pattern forever due to that
discovery?
I hope not, but if that's the case my vote is for CMV.
As said before, I believe the documentation and code comments can become
much more clear with this change.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151124/5b9476f9/attachment.html>;