ERC-165 vs ERC-8199
Standard Interface Detection compared with Sandboxed Smart Wallet.
No shared functions
0 shared · 1 vs 7 functions · 0% of the smaller surface
ERC-8199 lists ERC-165 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.
🤝 Shared (0)
None.
◀️ Only in ERC-165 (1)
0x01ffc9a7 | supportsInterface(bytes4) |
▶️ Only in ERC-8199 (7)
0x531ef90a | executeFromOwner((address,uint256,bytes)[]) |
0xeac3fda4 | getAgents() |
0xf9287c65 | invokeAgentExec((address,uint256,bytes)[],bytes) |
0x554c4f4b | isAgentActive(address) |
0x8da5cb5b | owner() |
0x9495d5db | registerAgents((address,uint256,(address,bytes)[])[]) |
0xdfe97518 | removeAgents((address,uint256,(address,bytes)[])[]) |
Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-165 · ERC-8199