Revising ERC-2535 Diamonds to Simplify and Improve the Terminology

[mudgen]

@kyle

I’m in this camp. Going all in on an analogy is not inherently an issue, and people get familiar with it pretty quickly.

I see especially little benefit in going through the pain of changing terms, and still keeping the “Facet” term, which was easily the most confusing part at first. Loupe and DiamondCut were not at all a cognitive burden, since they were truly analogous to introspection and upgrade.

The terminology here wasn’t what was confusing, it was the overall architecture needing some time to really digest.

I’m (softly) against this idea. It just feels totally unnecessary to me.

@kyle I am glad to know this, thank you. In my opinion ERC-2535 Diamonds is a good working standard just the way it is. I decided not to change anything in it. I am proposing a new standard though here: Proposal for a Simplified Standard for Diamond Contracts - #5 by mudgen