I noticed that in Module bls12_381, the implementation of trait ECPoint for struct G1Point is kept from v0.7.0 till the current v0.10.0, while since v0.8.0, the wrapper Point<E: Curve> has been recommended instead of the low-level trait ECPoint. Also, the significant function hash_to_curve still outputs a struct G1Point.
Seemingly, there is some convenience when choosing Point<Bls12_381_1> over G1Point. For example, the traits Serialize and Deserialize are implemented for Point<E: Curve> but not G1Point.
I am wondering if there is any reason to keep the specific notation G1Point (as well as the implementation of trait ECPoint for it) for BLS12-381 when there is a generic struct Point<E: Curve> (namely Point<Bls12_381_1> as an instantiation)?
I noticed that in Module
bls12_381, the implementation of traitECPointfor structG1Pointis kept from v0.7.0 till the current v0.10.0, while since v0.8.0, the wrapperPoint<E: Curve>has been recommended instead of the low-level traitECPoint.Also, the significant functionhash_to_curvestill outputs a structG1Point.Seemingly, there is some convenience when choosing
Point<Bls12_381_1>overG1Point. For example, the traitsSerializeandDeserializeare implemented forPoint<E: Curve>but notG1Point.I am wondering if there is any reason to keep the specific notation
G1Point(as well as the implementation of traitECPointfor it) for BLS12-381 when there is a generic structPoint<E: Curve>(namelyPoint<Bls12_381_1>as an instantiation)?