Type of base in digit decomposition descriptor

[Tibo-lg]

I'm wondering if there is a reason for base to be a bigsize in digit decomposition descriptor. I think it's fine not to hardcode it to be 2 to allow flexibility but it seems that allowing arbitrary size for it is not a good idea either. As we will update the oracle messages in the near future, would it make sense to change it to be a u8 or u16 maybe?

[benthecarman]

I think it was a bigsize so it would only be 1 byte in most cases. However, doing a u8 would accomplish the same goals.

[Tibo-lg]

Ah I see. Yeah u8 would be better IMHO because we would get bound check for free. It's an issue for several other fields actually.

[benthecarman]

Yeah u8 would be better IMHO because we would get bound check for free.

+1

[Christewart]

if we are going to do this it should go into #163 and i think its a small enough change that we can sneak it in there?

[Tibo-lg]

This one change in particular is on oracle message so I guess it should maybbe go in #167

[benthecarman]

Oracle announcements go in a contract info so i think it should be included in #163

[Tibo-lg]

For now we agreed not to put oracle changes in #163 to avoid breaking all oracle infrastructure before #167 (so all oracle messages are unchanged in #163 for now)