Eliminate Boolean properties

[carlostome]

Description

Addresses #342.

Original:

• actionWellFormed
• isP2Script
• isAdaOnlyᵇ
• feesOK

Other:

• isTwoPhaseScriptAddress

Left:

• isValid

Checklist

• Commit sequence broadly makes sense and commits have useful messages
• Any semantic changes to the specifications are documented in CHANGELOG.md
• Code is formatted according to CONTRIBUTING.md
• Self-reviewed the diff

[WhatisRT]

feesOK looks great! The other two still need a bit of work.

[WhatisRT]

Here we have an interesting problem: this code belongs to the visible section of the PDF and we shouldn't show stuff like that because we'd have to explain what it means (and the meaning isn't particularly interesting). However, marking isTwoPhaseScriptAddress? as an instance isn't a good idea and wouldn't even work anyway.

I think the only reasonable solution here is to turn isTwoPhaseScriptAddress into a data type and then provide a ⁇ instance for that type. As I see it, there are two options to do that:

• either completely replace the function with a type whose constructors contain the same logic, or
• provide a 'newtype' wrapper around isTwoPhaseScriptAddress, i.e. something of this form:

  data isTwoPhaseScriptAddress' : Tx → UTxO → Addr → Type where
    wrap : ∀ {tx utxo a} → isTwoPhaseScriptAddress tx utxo a → isTwoPhaseScriptAddress' tx utxo a
  

The second option has the upside that we can cheat a little and just hide this wrapper behind the curtain when rendering the PDF. We currently don't have the machinery to do that perfectly because we'd have to substitute isTwoPhaseScriptAddress' with isTwoPhaseScriptAddress in the line above when rendering the PDF, but we probably need a mechanism for that anyway. So I'm currently leaning more towards that option.

[carlostome]

How would we go about substituting isTwoPhaseScriptAddress' by its unprimed version in the pdf?

[WhatisRT]

@carlostome I'd like to merge this, the only thing that's still open is the choice of Dec constructors. If you have a reason to prefer _because_ we can leave it as is, but otherwise I'd prefer to go with yes and no for consistency.

[WhatisRT]

Thanks! I've renamed isAdaOnlyᵇ to isAdaOnly because the ᵇ was just to indicate that it's a boolean. I've also removed a ˢ that wasn't necessary anymore.

[WhatisRT]

Whoa, apparently removing the ˢ breaks something in a completely different place. No idea what's going on there, I'll just revert that for now.