From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39CF6409 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:31:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f44.google.com (mail-vk0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEABC87 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:31:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkha189 with SMTP id a189so10049479vkh.2 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 04:31:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SSwdLqQJDTYaiXB09qpKu1m2rWMz1xa/cUW709Sdwjg=; b=QqJhaFXnQ+hU68D6dcgO6wb0VNsi48DKWQbR/I9w4yLcpNx7mMLsViL/f9BdlguU4F 3h4CIW5GBV9qJThFWEPMWkxKSu5LHIjGNtO91Y2qYR81tDfJhG6lexVlbt35ttXvmS7o h/tW/T8M1GaXfwdWKCqmGpIzD9SOWJgajBnlgC023wFENpRAvCFCtxnD14AIF5cq2Q7l 99cYX1m37vGrnR3RWuI3VTwsw/itFVuyc8qMVmJa32YsJSMGwslBiQLCHEtXSD9sUsY8 K6l9F12t4WL/rfdxvY/N7afU1uQun+6APrsN153J7Agk2LYkIUNrZFI4AH56w9zjdBeR s03g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SSwdLqQJDTYaiXB09qpKu1m2rWMz1xa/cUW709Sdwjg=; b=JqI/DoJrB5qzxJmIZPCB0Pl/Og+DGFcHDIr47i7U0MKkCSyN/0BDu2ApRUplRLFHJV 5gmdMHOoJMLldcinmK4oy9lju1HXlaODdD9hMaUi97p1/kSexL2klCs1RIs0W+QqKJTA 9N+rR7RGx+2M5aXNVWjkf4slmDxa7DhjPL0dQLbOJxsgniPrSCRYju4mI471wXM+m5KL kAvDm3OvOGq3F5fdGedb/E3haKffJv/UKPAnVLJTn9MZUIlpW4+T7n1T0ha6cznkKMRv cWhdzHyB5A9F07HuBcl5axFe7aHFEAwe87Y2KD9E/HvX4JIHghprJXpyN5o7OhKJt1Sa 6Ptg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkDjyYP8m9ELzslcgWrnN4G4z0J6lxK8j3U+KrfiyesCFXVGW4bbHxTK0eKl6VcNgFZbwG4 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.34.196 with SMTP id i187mr25332667vki.2.1448368315815; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 04:31:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.132.147 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 04:31:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.132.147 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 04:31:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:31:55 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Btc Drak Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113daab6f7eabf052548862e X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:26:30 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative name for CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIP112) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:31:57 -0000 --001a113daab6f7eabf052548862e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I agree, I believe the first name that an op with equivalent functionality had was simply op_maturity. At least I remember we discussed such an opcode when discussing pegged sidechains' design. I kind of dislike the check_x_verify naming pattern. We want all new operands to return if whatever they're checking/verifying fails, fine. Do we have to repeat this redundant naming pattern forever due to that discovery? I hope not, but if that's the case my vote is for CMV. As said before, I believe the documentation and code comments can become much more clear with this change. --001a113daab6f7eabf052548862e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

I agree, I believe the first name that an op with equivalent functionality had was simply op_maturity.
At least I remember we discussed such an opcode when discussing pegged sidechains' design.

I kind of dislike the check_x_verify naming pattern. We want all new operands to return if whatever they're checking/verifying fails, fine. Do we have to repeat this redundant naming pattern forever due to that discovery?
I hope not, but if that's the case my vote is for CMV.
As said before, I believe the documentation and code comments can become much more clear with this change.

--001a113daab6f7eabf052548862e--