For now, there is txSkelSomeRedeemer and txSkelEmptyRedeemer to pass redeemers to scripts in skeletons. There is also txSkelRedeemer which is a field accessor in skeletons (actually TxSkelRedeemer but the spirit is the same).
This is a bit confusing when using the user facing API. Completion pops up txSkelRedeemer easily instead of txSkelSomeRedeemer. Besides, the txSkel prefix should be used for field accessors only out of consistency.
I would advocate for dropping txSkel and renaming those to someRedeemer and emptyRedeemer. We could even just have redeemer and use () when empty (although we would lose a bit of abstraction).
Very tiny nitpicking issue.
For now, there is
txSkelSomeRedeemerandtxSkelEmptyRedeemerto pass redeemers to scripts in skeletons. There is alsotxSkelRedeemerwhich is a field accessor in skeletons (actuallyTxSkelRedeemerbut the spirit is the same).This is a bit confusing when using the user facing API. Completion pops up
txSkelRedeemereasily instead oftxSkelSomeRedeemer. Besides, thetxSkelprefix should be used for field accessors only out of consistency.I would advocate for dropping
txSkeland renaming those tosomeRedeemerandemptyRedeemer. We could even just haveredeemerand use()when empty (although we would lose a bit of abstraction).