-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 64
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
Adapt Nova usage of commitment to the generic trait #63
Conversation
9118cb3
to
57180c0
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM! Just a tiny question.
57180c0
to
9590ad3
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM.
Just as a note for the future, after having the end-to-end test working. We need to work hard on simplifying the trait bounds on this crate.
@@ -1 +1 @@ | |||
1.73.0 | |||
1.75.0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we need this bump?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was keeping with the latest release, but if it makes sense to stick to a specific one I'm also happy.
CP1: CommitmentProver<C1>, | ||
// enforce that the CP2 is Pedersen commitment, since we're at Ethereum's EVM decider | ||
CP2: CommitmentProver<C2, Params = PedersenParams<C2>>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good for now. But we need to find a way to simplify trait bounds here.
No description provided.