Nicolás Venturo

Indeed, @axic mentioned those as an alternative [here](https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/9054#issuecomment-638482837) as well.

What's the recommended way to do unchecked access in 0.7?

Is there a simple way available today to do an unchecked read? Even if it involves an inline-assembly `sload`. Short loops (n < 10) are not uncommon, and `sload` is...

Sadly they are not fixed-size but dynamic, forcing static arrays with some upper-bound imposes restrictions and extra costs that are also undesirable. Besides, that's not really related to the point...

>the AST is different and you have to solve the general case. That can very easily become a very hard problem, since you're asking the compiler to automatically prove the...

Are there any plans to do range-based loops in 0.8? I'm able to replace checked storage array access by mimicking arrays with index -> value mappings plus a length field,...

>This is useful in CREATE2 address calculation, when constructor args are known constants. Currently this is done by copying the whole bytecode to memory, which is very inefficient. Note that...

>There is a misconception that calling this function will return false if the address is an eoa `isContract` **will** always return false for an account that is an EOA. The...

@robertmagier I've just checked the standard in its final form, and it still contains the section described above (see [here](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-721.md#caveats). It references the [Solidity compiler issue #3412](https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/3412), where removing the...

@spalladino would the fee be charged on transfer? Who gets the fee? Wouldn't it be easier to simply limit transfers?