Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Adapt encoding to ethereum #186
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Adapt encoding to ethereum #186
Changes from 2 commits
b32602e
9de5a8c
eb25271
48bc0c1
94aac8a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This in general will create some compatible-looking types in Nim which aren't actually compatible Solidity types, e.g.,
int40
andint48
are not the same in Solidity but they would end up being effectively the same in this mapping. Is that intention? Does it matter?But this wouldn't hold between
int64
andint72
: those would map to 64 and 128 respectively, and would not be the same type. So this also becomes a question of, is that ok for your use case? It creates sort of distinctions in the Nim-side integer types which are different than the Solidity ones.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, this always creates
StInt
/StUint
types, even forlastpow2 <= 64
. Maybe not optimal.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This might be an actual problem - ie we should give a compile-time error rather than being incompatible at runtime for "unsupported" integers (or support them properly)