Should we refer to the recipient as the owner?

[PaulRBerg]

In #131, @andreivladbrg made all of our contract inherit from the ERC-721 standard. The most crucial implication of that is that now there is no recipient field in the Stream struct anymore - the ownerOf function of the ERC-721 is what gives the recipient of the stream now.

We have a terminology problem. We can keep referring to the recipient of the stream as the "recipient" in the code, too, by choosing to keep the getRecipient getters and by naming our in-memory variables as such.

However, that incurs a little bit of additional gas (though I am not sure if it's only deployment cost that get affected or there's also a runtime overhead).

It would certainly be more gas efficient to use the ownerOf function directly and remove all recipient references. But that would create some confusion because the sender of the stream could easily be confused with the ERC-721 owner.

I'm leaning towards keeping the recipient, since the gas overhead is small while the clarity benefits are large. But I opened this discussion to document my thinking and let you all share your feedback if you disagree.

[andreivladbrg]

No disagreement here, we should keep the getRecipient function.

[PaulRBerg]

Cool.