Should we support i256/u256 types? | Stellar Developers | Page 1

tall flax Jan 26, 2023, 5:05 PM

#

@heady acorn raised this here and this should probably deserves it's own discussion #1067534037310255225 message
@heady acorn can you outline the reasoning here?

heady acorn Jan 28, 2023, 2:27 AM

#

Sure! We're trying to let developers call contracts running on Ethereum,
Polygon, Avalanche, etc. from Soroban and vice-versa. On these chains [iu]256
is (sadly) common, so when we call a Soroban contract from Solidity we have to
either:

check values at the boundary and then (1) truncate to [iu]128 or (2) bail if
the value is too big.
implement [ui]256 as a library. This is probably not a huge deal, but leaves
room for error if it's not part of some standard lib.

tall flax Jan 30, 2023, 9:16 PM

#

ok. @wind hemlock is looking into this as part of a type overhaul: https://github.com/stellar/stellar-xdr/pull/64#issuecomment-1407271956

GitHub

Replace ScObject with ScOption. Unify everything under ScVal. by pa...

While investigating stellar/soroban-tools#330, it turns out there's currently no way to explicitly represent Option<Symbol> (or Option<any other primitive>) in the xdr. Instead any ...

#

@heady acorn if there are other types you feel strongly about then feel free to comment on that issue

#Should we support i256/u256 types?