Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify where data is used in a redeemer #264

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

SebastienGllmt
Copy link
Contributor

In some places, we use the variable name plutus_data, but unless you have the context it's not clear that this is actually the data for the redeemer and not the datum

I changed the variable names to try and clarify this

Copy link
Contributor

@rooooooooob rooooooooob left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about the WASM bindings?

@SebastienGllmt
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rooooooooob can you maybe take over this PR?

rooooooooob added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2024
In some places, we use the variable name plutus_data, but unless you have the context it's not clear that this is actually the data for the redeemer and not the datum

Replaces #264 due to conflicts with crate restructuring (it modified the
old /rust/ crate) + some changes were no longer needed as things were renamed in the refactor.
SebastienGllmt pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 5, 2024
In some places, we use the variable name plutus_data, but unless you have the context it's not clear that this is actually the data for the redeemer and not the datum

Replaces #264 due to conflicts with crate restructuring (it modified the
old /rust/ crate) + some changes were no longer needed as things were renamed in the refactor.
@SebastienGllmt SebastienGllmt deleted the clarify-data-type branch August 9, 2024 16:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants