Skip to content

token-2022: Nits of token-2022 extensions#348

Merged
febo merged 1 commit intomainfrom
febo/nits-on-extension
Feb 20, 2026
Merged

token-2022: Nits of token-2022 extensions#348
febo merged 1 commit intomainfrom
febo/nits-on-extension

Conversation

@febo
Copy link
Collaborator

@febo febo commented Feb 12, 2026

Problem

Some of the extensions are not following the same pattern.

Solution

Update the extensions to make them consistent.

@febo febo force-pushed the febo/nits-on-extension branch from 7e70c1b to 8484fa0 Compare February 20, 2026 15:09
@febo febo marked this pull request as ready for review February 20, 2026 15:15
@febo febo requested a review from joncinque February 20, 2026 15:15
@LStan
Copy link
Contributor

LStan commented Feb 20, 2026

Why did you change impl SomeStruct<'_, '_, '_> to impl<'a, 'b, 'c> SomeStruct<'a, 'b, 'c>, but didn't change impl SomeStruct<'_, '_> to impl<'a, 'b, 'c> SomeStruct<'a, 'b>?

@febo
Copy link
Collaborator Author

febo commented Feb 20, 2026

Why did you change impl SomeStruct<'_, '_, '_> to impl<'a, 'b, 'c> SomeStruct<'a, 'b, 'c>, but didn't change impl SomeStruct<'_, '_> to impl<'a, 'b, 'c> SomeStruct<'a, 'b>?

It all depends whether there is a constructor helper (new and with_multisig_signers) or not. They use the lifetimes, so we need to have them explicit in that case.

Copy link
Collaborator

@joncinque joncinque left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great!

@febo febo merged commit e5f1c2e into main Feb 20, 2026
8 checks passed
@febo febo deleted the febo/nits-on-extension branch February 20, 2026 23:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants