Thoughts on creating a "StdConstants" contract?

[PaulRBerg]

Would you be open to a PR that separated the constants defined in CommonBase in a separate contract StdConstants, which CommonBase would then inherit from?

[mds1]

Hmm, what's the rationale for it? I would lean towards keeping constants in CommonBase to avoid over-abstracting things.

Currently all Std* contracts are independent of CommonBase, so this suggestion would also break that convention

[PaulRBerg]

Well, simply being able to inherit from StdConstants and make use of the constants defined in Foundry without also getting the vm and the stdstore variables. I can't do this currently because I'm using PRBTest.

Good point re convention, I didn't consider that.

I guess, I don't have a strong opinion here. Copy-pasting the constants that I need is not a big chore, not at all, so I'm happy to close this as not planned if you can't think of any easy solution that would at the same not break the contract independence convention and would make it possible to re-use the constants in Test contract equivalents.

[Sabnock01]

There are a few constants from CommonBase that wound up being implemented in Std* files like UINT256_MAX in StdUtils.sol. Some minor duplication to think about.