Update eof.md - RETURNCODE

[pdobacz]

Documenting an idea surfaced in discord

[gumb0]

Not sure what's the benefit.

[pdobacz]

Not sure what's the benefit.

It seemed to have support in the discord convo, so I posted here for tracking. I'm personally fine with RETURNCONTRACT, even if RETURNCODE is nicer. CODE is more to-the-point and EVM-specific, while CONTRACT is a bit vague and more on a different level of abstraction.

[gumb0]

I don't love RETURNCODE, because it's not a code that is being returned, but a container.
(consider for example, if data-only containers are allowed at some point, this will be able to return a container with only data and no code).

How about EOFRETURN or RETURNEOF?

[pdobacz]

I don't love RETURNCODE, because it's not a code that is being returned...

Fair point. I understand RETURNCONTAINER is just too long?

Advantage of RETURNCODE is that it aligns with HASCODE (which cannot be HASCONTAINER/HASEOF, because it works for legacy targets), as well as previously relevant CODECOPY etc, to which everyone is used to. Also I imagine that, when speaking about accounts, everyone will keep on saying "the account has code" not "has container".

EOFRETURN would match up with EOFCREATE, but might be interpreted as the EOF replacement of RETURN, which it isn't, contrary to EOFCREATE being the EOF replacement of CREATE (:exploding_head:). Then, maybe it is the "RETURN" which is the problem? EOFDEPLOY?

BTW, I realized recently that naming is weird. We're defining EVM Object format, but we are calling these containers, not objects. RETURNOBJECT? ECF? neither seems likely.

Going back to the data containers - would we still be using the same opcode for these? a specialized RETURNDATA, which doesn't have the immediate arg and doesn't require a subcontainer might be more appropriate.

I still think RETURNCODE is optimal, just because it lines up with the meaning "code" has from POV of accounts, is familiar with RETURN from legacy creation (but is at the same time clearly distinct), and mainly avoids "CONTRACT" word.

[frangio]

I don't love RETURNCODE, because it's not a code that is being returned, but a container.

The term "code" is overloaded in EOF, it could refer to "EOF code section" or to the "account code" in the state trie, which is a container. All of the opcodes with "code" in their names are removed in EOF, and HASCODE hasn't been accepted yet, so it's hard to find an analogy.

EOFDEPLOY is not bad. RETURNCODE seems okay too and I prefer it to RETURNCONTRACT. I like these arguments by @pdobacz:

it lines up with the meaning "code" has from POV of accounts, is familiar with RETURN from legacy creation (but is at the same time clearly distinct)