Green Baneling
Green Baneling
In Solidity, the user must define a modifier. It means that the user also must do that in case of ink!. We can require him to define the private modifier(function)...
But it is an example of an independent modifier and it has low functionality. We can't mark where we want to paste the body of the function(In solidity you can...
> But it is an example of an independent modifier and it has low functionality. We can't mark where we want to paste the body of the function(In solidity you...
> Given that characteristic, why can't we just have an explicit function call? We can do an explicit function call, but the problem is how you will pass the body...
What do you think about rewriting the `parity-scale-codec` and some traits/logic(`SpreadLayout`, `StorageLayout` and etc) in the ink! to use dynamic dispatching instead of monomorphization? I think that the combination of...
Duplicate of https://github.com/paritytech/ink/issues/1000
@Robbepop What do you think about the idea to change the way have we generated the metadata? I created [an example](https://github.com/xgreenx/ink-metadata) of how we can add events to the metadata...
To achieve user-friendly events they should be independent. At the moment the user can define events only in the body of the contract(under `#[ink(contract)]` macro). Those events are available only...
> Part of the point of using Substrate is that things are generic and they can be swapped out easily It is that I'm suggesting!=) Only maintainers of the network...
In other words, they are global types for the whole parachain's smart contract ecosystem. But in that way, they still are generic because you can replace them to work with...