Design: Do we need explicit #[account(init)]?

[jimmy-claw]

Summary

This issue documents a design question about the attribute in SPEL instructions.

Current Design

The attribute is required to indicate that an account should be claimed (transferred from to the program) rather than updated (already owned by the program).

Current Usage

Pattern	Generated Code	LEZ Validation
		PDA derivation must match
		must be true
(no init)

Questions

1. Is without or valid?

   • Currently generates without signer authorization
   • LEZ v0.2.0-rc1 requires for
   • This would fail validation unless account has

2. Could we make implicit?

   Alternative approach: Runtime check

   Pros:

   • Less boilerplate in instruction definitions
   • Can't forget to add

   Cons:

   • Implicit behavior might hide logic errors
   • Harder to debug when expectations are wrong
   • Runtime validation happens later (post-compile)

3. Should we require + ( OR )?

   • alone seems invalid (can't claim without PDA or authorization)
   • Macro could enforce this at compile time

Related

• PR chore(bump): use LEZ v0.2.0-rc1 release tag #122 (LEZ v0.2.0-rc1 compatibility)
• Claim validation rules in LEZ: for Authorized, PDA derivation for PDA

Next Steps

Discussion needed on whether to:

1. Keep current explicit design
2. Make implicit (runtime detection)
3. Enforce requires or at compile time

/cc @vpavlin