My current approach is:
-
contract interface for ACIs
-
contract for child contracts
-
main contract for main contract
If there is only one contract then it will be turned into main contract. I also stablesort toplevel declarations in the following order:
- ACIs
- Namespaces
- Child contracts
- Main contract
Implementing truly mutually recursive contracts is a work for a separate task with the current implementation. But keep in mind that these things aren’t consensus affecting so if you don’t like it we can easily make them different
4 Likes
Yet another idea: if there use pragma to define main contract. This could make it easier to switch the compiled contract using simple preprocessor
@main_contract Yanislav
contract Yanislav = ...
contract Vjacheslav = ...
tbh this looks the best for me
Can we please stick to your first idea,
contract interface for ACIscontract for child contractsmain contract for main contract
The pragma approach brings up some sick old OOP feelings of “decorating” things like java / typescript because their crappy syntax didn’t allow for a more consistent/elegant way of passing contextual information and the other bs they use that for. I prefer the less confusing and clean annotation of
contract...
contract...
main contract...
no need for any extra tokens here imho, let’s keep a clean idea clean 
2 Likes
I agree with this syntax for creation, feels natural to Sophia to my eyes.
1 Like