rich1.0npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24 📝 Original message: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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151124/5b9476f9/attachment.html>