previously we reused the obsidian types for yul types, which worked but was messy and forced some stringly typed programming. this is a little bit neater, imo.
@mcoblenz when reviewing, please feel free to suggest better names for constructors and that sort of detail; i'm not positive this meshes that well with the codebase but i think the idea is good.
previously we reused the obsidian types for yul types, which worked but was messy and forced some stringly typed programming. this is a little bit neater, imo.
@mcoblenz when reviewing, please feel free to suggest better names for constructors and that sort of detail; i'm not positive this meshes that well with the codebase but i think the idea is good.