Make inscription type more flexible #892
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
500577f to
3422bc3
Compare
3422bc3 to
65b1cee
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We need to be quite lenient in what inscriptions we accept, to maintain global consensus over symbols.
Ideally, this means performing a minimum of validity checks, since the more validity checks we have and the more complex they are, the more likely we'll accidentally change them and change the set of valid inscriptions, and the more likely that different implementations will disagree about the set of valid inscriptions.
This PR converts the inscription enum to a struct, and removes all validity checks associated with content and content type. This isn't strictly necessary at the moment, but it'll be more code churn the longer we wait to do it.