Skip to content

Change terminology used for input output parameters pt 2 #5324

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 14, 2018

Conversation

ChrisChinchilla
Copy link
Contributor

@ChrisChinchilla ChrisChinchilla commented Oct 28, 2018

Checklist

  • Code compiles correctly
  • All tests are passing
  • New tests have been created which fail without the change (if possible)
  • README / documentation was extended, if necessary
  • Changelog entry (if change is visible to the user)
  • Used meaningful commit messages

Description

As discussed here #4859 (comment) this first PR changes the terminology previously used for input and output parameters. Hopefully, I got the semantics, explanations and usage correct. Part 1 is here #5323.

@@ -291,10 +291,10 @@ In the grammar, opcodes are represented as pre-defined identifiers.
| | | | 8 byte value, ``this`` is the current contract's address |
| | | | as a 20 byte value and ``s`` is a big-endian 256-bit value |
+-------------------------+-----+---+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| call(g, a, v, in, | | F | call contract at address a with input mem[in...(in+insize)) |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we should call these "function parameters", because we do not call a function. I would leave it as it is.

@@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ functions, annotate conditions for formal verification, and provide a
function.

In the following example we document the title of the contract, the explanation
for the two input parameters and two returned values.
for the two function parameters and two return types.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

types does not seem right here. I think we should either say return parameters or return values (which is slightly wrong, but perhaps better to understand).

docs/types.rst Outdated
@@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ Send is the low-level counterpart of ``transfer``. If the execution fails, the c
In order to interface with contracts that do not adhere to the ABI,
or to get more direct control over the encoding,
the functions ``call``, ``delegatecall`` and ``staticcall`` are provided.
They all take a single ``bytes memory`` argument as input and
They all take a single ``bytes memory`` function parameter and
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
They all take a single ``bytes memory`` function parameter and
They all take a single ``bytes memory`` parameter and

("function" is implied)

@chriseth chriseth force-pushed the docs-input-output-change-types branch from 3b1a43a to f30bd92 Compare November 14, 2018 13:16
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 14, 2018

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (develop@b0a2e41). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             develop    #5324   +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage           ?   87.99%           
==========================================
  Files              ?      320           
  Lines              ?    32444           
  Branches           ?     3858           
==========================================
  Hits               ?    28549           
  Misses             ?     2590           
  Partials           ?     1305
Flag Coverage Δ
#all 87.99% <ø> (?)
#syntax 27.94% <ø> (?)

@chriseth chriseth force-pushed the docs-input-output-change-types branch from f30bd92 to afdc82f Compare November 14, 2018 13:18
chriseth
chriseth previously approved these changes Nov 14, 2018
@chriseth chriseth force-pushed the docs-input-output-change-types branch from afdc82f to fa1cb34 Compare November 14, 2018 13:20
@chriseth chriseth merged commit 048109b into develop Nov 14, 2018
@axic axic deleted the docs-input-output-change-types branch November 14, 2018 13:32
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants