Brice
That's a good point @njordhov, and would make a lot of sense for other languages, but for Clarity, I think we're looking to maximize readability and minimize the potential for...
I agree, @njordhov, that they are not required to be reserved, but again, to avoid confusing (innocent or malicious) contracts, I agree with @LNow above and prefer to reserve all...
Good point. I agree, that's a good argument for the in-contract version indicator.
This should still be addressed. I will take this work.
This change is not included in 2.1. For the time being, let's report this as an error in Clarinet, and then push to get this included in the next network...
Since we are seeing these codecov errors very frequently, can we just change this setting to false in the various places it is used? At least until we come up...
The parser change here should only be in the v2 parser, which should only be effective in epoch 2.1. Did this length check also get added to the v1 parser?...
I see. Thanks Jude, and sorry about that. The change to the regex for the `ContractName` is not even necessary for the 40 character limit to be caught in 2.1....
PR #3462 adds the test case.
Adding a note here following discussion at the engineering weekly meeting -- this is intentionally not changed in 2.1's parser or type-checker changes, since there was still open discussion about...