-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.4k
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 operator language in #721 #931
Conversation
Please review conflict, just merged another PR. Thank you! |
Sorry, GitHub looks messed up here. Both these changes to master seem to already be in master. Maybe I am looking at this wrong. |
Look at the PR instead of the individual commits--the most recent commit is just me merging changes from master to my branch to resolve the conflicts you mentioned. Unfortunately it looks like when editing directly on the github.com UI it does a merge instead of a rebase, so it shows the extra commit in history. |
I see now, thank you. Can you please move the "The contract MUST allow multiple operators per owner." line into the |
This is a courtesy notice to let you know that the format for EIPs has been modified slightly. If you want your draft merged, you will need to make some small changes to how your EIP is formatted:
If your PR is editing an existing EIP rather than creating a new one, this has already been done for you, and you need only rebase your PR. In addition, a continuous build has been setup, which will check your PR against the rules for EIP formatting automatically once you update your PR. This build ensures all required headers are present, as well as performing a number of other checks. Please rebase your PR against the latest master, and edit your PR to use the above format for frontmatter. For convenience, here's a sample header you can copy and adapt:
|
- Fixed typo (operator to operators) - Explicitly call out the implementation MUST support multiple operators per owner as implied by the comments - Removed unnecessary throw from the dev instructions on setApprovalForAll
Thank you. +1. @nicksavers please merge. |
Creating pull request to clarify some language as requested by @fulldecent in discussion at #721. Draft for this EIP was accepted in #841.
@fulldecent Not sure if the dev instruction is the best place to call out the specifics of the operator, feel free to recommend a different location if you feel strongly about the placement.