You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is there a reason why transferral to the address of the ERC721 contract isn't forbidden in the _transfer function instead of solving the problem with the rescueLostKitty function? It's a question of one require, so the added gas cost should be pretty minimal and considering the amount of time and energy needed to coordinate a "rescue mission", it could be worth it.
/// @dev Transfers a kitty owned by this contract to the specified address./// Used to rescue lost kitties. (There is no "proper" flow where this contract/// should be the owner of any Kitty. This function exists for us to reassign/// the ownership of Kitties that users may have accidentally sent to our address.)/// @param _kittyId - ID of kitty/// @param _recipient - Address to send the cat tofunctionrescueLostKitty(uint256_kittyId,address_recipient)publiconlyCOOwhenNotPaused{require(_owns(this,_kittyId));_transfer(this,_recipient,_kittyId);}
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is there a reason why transferral to the address of the ERC721 contract isn't forbidden in the _transfer function instead of solving the problem with the rescueLostKitty function? It's a question of one require, so the added gas cost should be pretty minimal and considering the amount of time and energy needed to coordinate a "rescue mission", it could be worth it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: