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

Change "amount" for "assets" #264

Closed
MathisGD opened this issue Aug 10, 2023 · 9 comments · Fixed by #277
Closed

Change "amount" for "assets" #264

MathisGD opened this issue Aug 10, 2023 · 9 comments · Fixed by #277
Assignees

Comments

@MathisGD
Copy link
Contributor

Because "amount" is not really suited when you have shares

@Rubilmax
Copy link
Collaborator

Both are ok to me

@Jean-Grimal
Copy link
Contributor

"Underlying" could also work IMO

@pakim249CAL
Copy link
Contributor

"Underlying" could also work IMO

Considering we used "underlying" to represent the address of underlying assets in our previous work, I don't think we should use this naming.

@Rubilmax
Copy link
Collaborator

"Underlying" could also work IMO

There's no concept of a financial product with an underlying asset in the case of Blue?

@MerlinEgalite
Copy link
Contributor

I'm ok to change it. Maybe we can bundle it with #238 to ease my life?

@MerlinEgalite MerlinEgalite self-assigned this Aug 11, 2023
@makcandrov
Copy link
Contributor

Imo "asset" is less clear because it can be used to refer to the token address, even though there is no confusion possible here since it is represented as a uint256

@MerlinEgalite MerlinEgalite linked a pull request Aug 11, 2023 that will close this issue
@MathisGD
Copy link
Contributor Author

I agree with @makcandrov. Maybe we could renaming borrowableAsset to borrowableToken ?

@MerlinEgalite
Copy link
Contributor

You mean in the market struct?

@MerlinEgalite
Copy link
Contributor

Do you still believe assets is better than amount?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
6 participants