ERC-721 vs ERC-6059

Non-Fungible Token Standard compared with Parent-Governed Nestable Non-Fungible Tokens.

Overlapping, neither contains the other

2 shared · 10 vs 13 functions · 20% of the smaller surface

ERC-6059 lists ERC-721 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (2)

`0x6352211e`	`ownerOf(uint256)`
`0x01ffc9a7`	`supportsInterface(bytes4)`

`0x095ea7b3`	`approve(address,uint256)`
`0x70a08231`	`balanceOf(address)`
`0x081812fc`	`getApproved(uint256)`
`0xe985e9c5`	`isApprovedForAll(address,address)`
`0xb88d4fde`	`safeTransferFrom(address,address,uint256,bytes)`
`0x42842e0e`	`safeTransferFrom(address,address,uint256)`
`0xa22cb465`	`setApprovalForAll(address,bool)`
`0x23b872dd`	`transferFrom(address,address,uint256)`

`0xe97ceaa8`	`acceptChild(uint256,uint256,address,uint256)`
`0x35440faf`	`addChild(uint256,uint256)`
`0xb390c0ab`	`burn(uint256,uint256)`
`0x2f32f937`	`childOf(uint256,uint256)`
`0x6f19951c`	`childrenOf(uint256)`
`0xfb25fb7a`	`directOwnerOf(uint256)`
`0xe5f2e9e4`	`nestTransferFrom(address,address,uint256,uint256)`
`0xa898e364`	`pendingChildOf(uint256,uint256)`
`0x44ec9344`	`pendingChildrenOf(uint256)`
`0x97961336`	`rejectAllChildren(uint256,uint256)`
`0xdefa80c3`	`transferChild(uint256,address,uint256,uint256,address,uint256,bool,bytes)`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-721 · ERC-6059