fix/18

[Jean-Grimal]

Fixes https://github.com/cantinasec/review-morpho-blue-1/issues/18

[Rubilmax]

I'm not convinced we need to do this just yet. Yes, wrapped native on other chains doesn't require to be a fork of WETH. But:

1. Everyone has incentives to do so because the WETH implementation is formally verified and battle-tested
2. we can just define "wrapped native" as a fork of WETH on other chains and then our naming is correct, but the code is incompatible with unknown implementations of wrapped native

So IMO it's just a matter of definitions, but not a matter of naming

[MerlinEgalite]

Indeed it works for polygon at least.

I'm not convinced we need to do this just yet.

Do you propose an alternative?

[Rubilmax]

Do you propose an alternative?

I'm suggesting to acknowledge and precise that what we name "wrapped native" actually targets forks of WETH on other chains! Thus we know that the code doesn't work with any wrapped native, but we think that no other implementation than WETH are worth adapting

[Jean-Grimal]

I'm suggesting to acknowledge and precise that what we name "wrapped native" actually targets forks of WETH on other chains! Thus we know that the code doesn't work with any wrapped native, but we think that no other implementation than WETH are worth adapting

So should I do another PR with just this acknowledgement ?

[Rubilmax]

I'm suggesting to acknowledge and precise that what we name "wrapped native" actually targets forks of WETH on other chains! Thus we know that the code doesn't work with any wrapped native, but we think that no other implementation than WETH are worth adapting

So should I do another PR with just this acknowledgement ?

Best would be to have a consensus first

[MerlinEgalite]

I'm ok with your suggestion @Rubilmax

[Jean-Grimal]

I'm ok with your suggestion @Rubilmax

Same

[Rubilmax]

So I don't think it's necessary to have a comment in the code but if you feel like it let's go but the most important is to explain to cantina