Skip to content
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

Update the regex of the EIP link check #58

Open
SamWilsn opened this issue Dec 16, 2022 · 7 comments
Open

Update the regex of the EIP link check #58

SamWilsn opened this issue Dec 16, 2022 · 7 comments
Labels
in discussion Feature is still in discussion and should not be implemented

Comments

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor

SamWilsn commented Dec 16, 2022

@SamWilsn can we update the regex of the EIP link check to as follows:

(?i)eip-[0-9]+\s

Originally posted by @Pandapip1 in ethereum/EIPs#6103 (comment)

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Pandapip1 Are you talking about:

pattern: r"(?i)erc[\s-]*[0-9]+",

Or:

pattern: r"(?i)eip[\s]*[0-9]+",

@SamWilsn SamWilsn added the in discussion Feature is still in discussion and should not be implemented label Dec 16, 2022
@Pandapip1
Copy link
Member

I'm talking about the one that suggests adding links to other EIPs. I'm not sure which it is.

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ohh, my bad. That would be:

markdown::LinkFirst(r"(?i)eip-[0-9]+").boxed(),

Why do you want it changed?

@Pandapip1
Copy link
Member

Pandapip1 commented Dec 17, 2022

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor Author

Those should've been changed to ERC725X and ERC725Y to refer to the interfaces, in my opinion. I'm not a huge fan of the EIP-9999G format since anyone can create one and we have no mechanism for preventing conflicting names.

@Pandapip1
Copy link
Member

Not necessarily true - the EIP itself defined those names in this case.

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor Author

Very true!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
in discussion Feature is still in discussion and should not be implemented
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants