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
Based on conversations in #60, it's been suggested to move away from the NoData and WithData nomenclature currently used for the contracts.
The current thinking is NoData should be removed, so the contracts names are just ERC20 and ERC721, because they are minimum viable implementations of their respective contracts.
WithData could be changed to ERC20FireFly and ERC721FireFly, since these contain all of the extra "recommended" FireFly functionality like URI's and attached data. However, dropping WithData makes the difference between the contracts less obvious. Plus, the FireFly suffix makes it sounds as though they are supposed to be the contract of choice for using with FireFly
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Based on conversations in #60, it's been suggested to move away from the
NoData
andWithData
nomenclature currently used for the contracts.The current thinking is
NoData
should be removed, so the contracts names are justERC20
andERC721
, because they are minimum viable implementations of their respective contracts.WithData
could be changed toERC20FireFly
andERC721FireFly
, since these contain all of the extra "recommended" FireFly functionality like URI's and attached data. However, droppingWithData
makes the difference between the contracts less obvious. Plus, theFireFly
suffix makes it sounds as though they are supposed to be the contract of choice for using with FireFlyThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: