ERC-5679 vs ERC-7802

Token Minting and Burning compared with Token With Mint/Burn Access Across Chains.

No shared functions

0 shared · 7 vs 3 functions · 0% of the smaller surface

ERC-7802 lists ERC-5679 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (0)

None.

`0x44d17187`	`burn(address,uint256,bytes)`
`0x3fdaf33b`	`burn(address,uint256,uint256,bytes[])`
`0x5473422e`	`burnBatch(address,uint256[],uint256[],bytes)`
`0x94d008ef`	`mint(address,uint256,bytes)`
`0x8832e6e3`	`safeMint(address,uint256,bytes)`
`0x5cfa9297`	`safeMint(address,uint256,uint256,bytes)`
`0xc39dfed8`	`safeMintBatch(address,uint256[],uint256[],bytes)`

`0x2b8c49e3`	`crosschainBurn(address,uint256)`
`0x18bf5077`	`crosschainMint(address,uint256)`
`0x01ffc9a7`	`supportsInterface(bytes4)`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-5679 · ERC-7802