-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
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
Improve Terminology and Syntax Consistency #114
Comments
I'd also like to clarify that I think the section names should shift to using fully qualified names e.g KeyGen -> Key Generation where the actual function name would be |
alternatively if we think names will become to large even with just applying the rule to inputs outputs and parameters, then I'm happy to stick with brief names e.g msg |
Raised by @BasileiosKal on the call the proposal to rename SpkGen to ProofGen or something similar because the proof is not just a signature proof of knowledge. |
My proposal for a terminology convention is:
|
Labeling as pending close ahead of WG call on the 4th of july |
Updates discussed to WG call: |
Discussed on 8th august WG call, closing |
Related to #25 currently the spec has a mix of casing for operation names, inputs, parameters and outputs this should be made consistent including whether short or more descriptive names are used.
Suggested rules for inputs outputs and parameters
Suggested rules for function naming
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: