CIP-0121? | Integer-ByteString conversions

[kozross]

CIP for Plutus primops for converting BuiltinInteger to BuiltinByteString, and back.

Human-readable version.

[rphair]

Thanks @kozross for a well documented submission. First I'm retitling this by convention the same as the current document title (Integer-ByteString conversions) especially since the more succinct title will work better in our CIP list once merged.

The main item I believe needs to be fixed (or checked at least) are the CIP-0035 requirements for builtin changes. Though different language is used, I think the general requirements are satisfied: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0035/README.md#processes

... but not all the particular requirements: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0035/README.md#additions-to-the-plutus-core-builtins

@michaelpj any time you can look over this submission I would really appreciate it. If I'm wrong about this not meeting the particular specifications for builtins by CIP-0035 I would happily stand corrected. To me this looks ready for acceptance as soon as all the formalities are met.

[zliu41]

@rphair Can we assign this a CIP number and merge it? Not only has it already been approved, but it has already been implemented and released in Plutus V3.

[rphair]

@zliu41 my apologies for being under the impression that the currently debated #794 was relative to CIP-0058 alone; in fact this one had fallen through the cracks in the belief it was still waiting for input from Plutus reviewers.

This PR branch is on an MLabs repository so I'll propose some changes there which @kozross can approve, to add a CIP number 121 and update the CIP repository README, so we don't have to wait for the next CIP meeting. Once that's committed then I'll approve this PR & expedite confirmations from other editors: shouldn't take too long after that.

[rphair]

@kozross I'll also submit a PR against this branch to modify the README for the CIP repository that officially assigns the CIP number (otherwise we wait for the 2-week meeting intervals).

[rphair]

@kozross look ready to merge from an editorial perspective, except for one artefact in the repo README probably from rebasing or fixing a merge conflict; will approve this when that's fixed...

[rphair]

@Ryun1 @Crypto2099 I'm marking this as Last Check since it seems that the same review process as #806 has been followed as noted in #806 (review) (cc @kozross) and so putting it on the agenda as such (https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/89).

Likewise @michaelpj @zliu41 please let us know if any technical reservations. It seems to me everything above has been addressed & I would be in favour of merging these 2 related proposals before the meeting if the other editors agree.

[rphair]

@kozross re: #624 (review) thanks for eaa2263 but there's still a merge conflict due the modification time on that section also being changed:

[rphair]

@zliu41 apologies for extra tags above... I fat fingered some GitHub feature while my Internet connection was bad. I understand you think this is ready to merge and FYI the editorial consensus from CIP meeting 2 days ago was that this is ready to go pending the administrative requirements that have recently been addressed.