even if we choose to implement erc4626 separately, having the vault call it "amount" and "shares" vs. erc4626 calling it "asset" and "shares" adds cognitive burden to people reading/reviewing the code.
i propose changing reference to amount to asset in the vault code.
see title:
even if we choose to implement erc4626 separately, having the vault call it "amount" and "shares" vs. erc4626 calling it "asset" and "shares" adds cognitive burden to people reading/reviewing the code.
i propose changing reference to
amount
toasset
in the vault code.