Update EIP-20: Renovate #6038
Update EIP-20: Renovate #6038
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
c-update
File
|
Pandapip1
changed the title
|
Strongly against. We've never rewritten EIPs to fit the "new recommendations" and I don't think we should start. |
We have modified EIPs to fit new recommendations before (#5055). It's true that we've never rewritten them, though. |
|
After today's EIPIP, I think the consensus is that this PR changes more than the absolute minimum to comply with the current EIP-1 guidelines. For example, moving Simple Summary to |
|
That seems reasonable. I'll revert the extra (unneeded) changes. |
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
|
@SamWilsn mind re-reviewing? |
|
@eth-bot rerun |
EIPS/eip-20.md
Outdated
| ### The approve and transferFrom flow | ||
|
|
||
| `approve` and `transferFrom` can be used in conjunction with one another to allow smart contracts to take an action if and only if a transfer succeeds. This enables use cases such as decentralized exchanges, which can trustlessly swap one token for another. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Implementation | ||
| ### Decimals is optional | ||
|
|
||
| There are already plenty of ERC20-compliant tokens deployed on the Ethereum network. | ||
| Different implementations have been written by various teams that have different trade-offs: from gas saving to improved security. | ||
| Some tokens might wish to use a base unit other than $10^{-18}$, and sometimes it doesn't make sense to have a fraction of a token. However, not every token might reasonably need to specify `decimals`. Thus, `decimals` is optional. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we should invent content that wasn't there in the original proposal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a non-normative required section. If I were the person writing ERC-20 and decided to include this field, that would be why. If the original authors consent/agree with the motivation provided then I see nothing wrong with this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is still more than is required to comply with current guidelines, and I don't think this qualifies as errata.
Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <[email protected]>
github-actions
bot
added
w-ci
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
|
Hey @SamWilsn, mind checking out the changes now? |
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
eth-bot
changed the title
github-actions
bot
added
w-ci
|
Oh lol that's a funny eip-review-bot bug. I'll get that fixed. |
|
The commit 9bfa57f (as a parent of 1a0a905) contains errors. |
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
|
This pull request was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback or request a review in a comment. |
WIP. Likely to be contentious.