Revising ERC-2535 Diamonds to Simplify and Improve the Terminology

ERCs
,
11

@radek Understood, thank you for this feedback. I appreciate it.

ad ERC change - pls, see RFC approach. It is better to create the new standard marking it as the replacement for ERC 2535 - see RFC example: Information on RFC 7230 » RFC Editor

It is not only about the standard. It is also about the documentation and tutorials. These are the ones out there that refer to 2535 with the former syntax.

Yes, that make sense. I agree with that. I’m going to make a new standard.

@radek Proposal for a new standard here: Proposal for a Simplified Standard for Diamond Contracts - #5 by mudgen

Btw, facet term - this one is particularly confusingly similar to facade :wink:

ad diamondCut - it is not only about upgrading - Given that diamondCut allows for adding, replacing, AND removing functionality, the term “upgrade” might feel slightly incomplete, as removing a function is often seen as a downgrade or a refactoring rather than a traditional improvement.

But ofc, more adhering to UUPS is upgrade

Yes, thank you for this feedback. I appreciate it.