BlindTransaction() code clarity issue/question

[dgpv]

This may be insignificant issue, but I am porting tx blinding code to python (for python-bitcointx to be able to blind/unblind txs, and to understand this tech better myself), so I would like to clear any confusion that I have about this code - maybe I miss something, and the code is written as it is intentionally.

At the

elements/src/blind.cpp

Line 398 in 5467be3

bool blind_issuance = (vBlindIssuanceToken.size() > nIn && vBlindIssuanceToken[nIn].IsValid()) ? true : false;

blind_issuance will always be True, because the same condition is checked at the start of the loop:

elements/src/blind.cpp

Line 379 in 5467be3

(nPseudo == 1 && vBlindIssuanceToken.size() > nIn && vBlindIssuanceToken[nIn].IsValid())) {

the condition have to be true for execution to get to the line 398.

It seems to me that calculating bool blind_issuance = is unnecessary,
CalculateReissuanceToken(asset, entropy, true) should be sufficient. Maybe with assert-check that the condition is indeed true, before the call.

Also, why is the (condition) ? true : false needed at line 398 (and also at line 268) ? && already gives boolean... Again, maybe I am just missing something, or this is just a style preference to write like this ?

I'm not trying to pick at the code style or anything, I just want to understand the code thoroughly, and try to clear my doubts.

[dgpv]

OTOH, CalculateReissuanceToken(asset, entropy, true) may not be self-documenting enough (without additional comments) compared to CalculateReissuanceToken(asset, entropy, blind_issuance), so maybe that was the reason to introduce this assignment.

Then, I think, assert(blind_issuance) just after the assignment would make the intention more clear.

[dgpv]

Anyway, this does not seem to be that important, and I think that my understanding of the code is correct. No point to bother the devs with such non-issues. Closing this.