> That's not correct. There is a construct "library" that is different from a normal contract. But the code in question didn't use that (for whatever reason).
Thanks for pointing me to this! Didn't know that yet...but in that case I'm really wondering why this strange "library" from Parity even worked the way it did...? If it's necessary to use the library construct in order to have the code not access its own contracts' data storage and funds, but those of the calling contract (this is at least how I understand the description you linked to), how could the Parity library even work the way it did without this construct?
You can always call public methods from other contracts regardless what construct you use. The library construct is a Solidity implementation detail but you can also use normal contracts, like they did in this case.
So far, it really looks like almost a criminal sloppy refactoring of the official multi sig contract from the EF that has been extensively audited.
Thanks for pointing me to this! Didn't know that yet...but in that case I'm really wondering why this strange "library" from Parity even worked the way it did...? If it's necessary to use the library construct in order to have the code not access its own contracts' data storage and funds, but those of the calling contract (this is at least how I understand the description you linked to), how could the Parity library even work the way it did without this construct?