Inflation txout naming

[fedsten]

In the header of the contract there is an optional field called inflation_txout, which is used when a secondary issuance has to be performed. Wouldn't it be clearer if it was called simply secondary_issuance_txout? I would avoid using different terms to express the same concept when it's not strictly necessary.

[dr-orlovsky]

My point was to keep variable names short... And the core difference is that contract is issuing assets under issuance_txout, while secondary_issuance_txout is reserved for future contracts, i.e. they are not of the same “type”, if I can say that way.

But for surr we can change the name if you still see it as a better option. Pls keep in mind, that v1.0 will invalidate these names anyway...

_{Sent with GitHawk}