Timeline for why doesn't it take any gas when making public view function but still writing in storage?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 26, 2018 at 16:19 | comment | added | user19510 | That's correct. | |
| Aug 26, 2018 at 16:13 | comment | added | Tjaden Hess |
I don't see that in the question, although it may be implied. view functions may be called via transactions as well, e.g. by another contract, in which case it will still cost gas
|
|
| Aug 26, 2018 at 15:41 | comment | added | user19510 |
@TjadenHess We're talking about view functions here, executed via eth_call (not a transaction).
|
|
| Aug 26, 2018 at 11:38 | comment | added | Tjaden Hess | 1 is wrong. Not only writing to storage costs gas, a transaction containing just a loop will consume gas as well | |
| Aug 25, 2018 at 16:10 | vote | accept | Chemistry | ||
| Aug 25, 2018 at 16:02 | comment | added | user19510 | Correct. The code in my post copies from memory to storage. You asked if the code you shared copied from storage to memory. I said that yes, it does. Then you asked if the other way around could work, and I said that yes, that works too. Then I provided an example. | |
| Aug 25, 2018 at 15:45 | comment | added | Chemistry | The last answer, do you think it's correct. I think it copies from memory to storage. | |
| Aug 25, 2018 at 15:22 | history | answered | user19510 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |