fix: 'owner' should be 'AccountOwner' in associated-token-account.md

[mikemaccana]

The old wording seemed incorrect. Solana uses the term 'owner' to mean program owner. I believe this sentence is saying the AccountOwner on the new ATA will be the associated wallet, can someone confirm that's correct?

[buffalojoec]

So, technically the field that represents the controlling authority of a Token Account is called owner.

solana-program-library/token/program/src/state.rs

Line 93 in 23916b2

pub owner: Pubkey,

However, the SetAuthority command used to change it is called AccountOwner.

solana-program-library/token/program/src/processor.rs

Lines 441 to 462 in 23916b2

	match authority_type {
	AuthorityType::AccountOwner => {
	Self::validate_owner(
	program_id,
	&account.owner,
	authority_info,
	account_info_iter.as_slice(),
	)?;
	if let COption::Some(authority) = new_authority {
	account.owner = authority;
	} else {
	return Err(TokenError::InvalidInstruction.into());
	}
	account.delegate = COption::None;
	account.delegated_amount = 0;
	if account.is_native() {
	account.close_authority = COption::None;
	}
	}

As you can see in that snippet, it will update owner based on that set_authority call.

So, although I think it's a bit confusing, owner is actually probably more accurate here.

Maybe we can reword this a bit and say:

Regardless of the creator, the new associated token account's
[`owner`](https://github.com/solana-labs/solana-program-library/blob/23916b24700cd222ad2397e9de8162ad6980e2e8/token/program/src/state.rs#L92-L93)
field will be the wallet, thus it will be controlled by the wallet, as
if the wallet itself had created the associated token account.

micro-nit: can you make sure to wrap the columns at 80?

[mikemaccana]

Got it! Your suggestion is definitely clearer. It sounds like the real issue is the code itself has two things called owner - account owner and program owner. It might be even better to switch to more distinct terms (rather than reuse 'owner') in order to avoid confusion. I know that sounds like significant change but if there's going to be ten times as many Solana developers in the future, it may be a good one to make sooner rather than later.

micro-nit: can you make sure to wrap the columns at 80?

Sure! Existing code is a mix of hard and soft wrapped and I didn't want to reformat unrelated code.

[buffalojoec]

Got it! Your suggestion is definitely clearer. It sounds like the real issue is the code itself has two things called owner - account owner and program owner. It might be even better to switch to more distinct terms (rather than reuse 'owner') in order to avoid confusion. I know that sounds like significant change but if there's going to be ten times as many Solana developers in the future, it may be a good one to make sooner rather than later.

Agreed, and to make matters worse we also call it authority in a lot of places, too. 💀