Potentially insufficient validation for operator transfers
For operator transfers, the current validation does not require the sender to be an operator (as long as the transferred value does not exceed the allowance):\\n```\\nrequire(\\n    \\_isOperatorForPartition(\\_partition, msg.sender, \\_from) ||\\n        (\\_value <= \\_allowedByPartition[\\_partition][\\_from][msg.sender]),\\n    EC\\_53\\_INSUFFICIENT\\_ALLOWANCE\\n);\\n```\\n\\nIt is unclear if this is the intention `or` whether the logical `or` should be a logical `and`.
Resolution\\nremoving `operatorTransferByPartition` and simplifying the interfaces to only `tranferByPartition`\\nThis removes the existing tranferByPartition, converting operatorTransferByPartition to it. The reason for this is to make the client interface simpler, where there is one method to transfer by partition, and that method can be called by either a sender wanting to transfer from their own address, or an operator wanting to transfer from a different token holder address. We found that it was redundant to have multiple methods, and the client convenience wasn't worth the confusion.\\nConfirm that the code matches the intention. If so, consider documenting the behavior (for instance, by changing the name of function `operatorTransferByPartition`.
```\\nrequire(\\n    \\_isOperatorForPartition(\\_partition, msg.sender, \\_from) ||\\n        (\\_value <= \\_allowedByPartition[\\_partition][\\_from][msg.sender]),\\n    EC\\_53\\_INSUFFICIENT\\_ALLOWANCE\\n);\\n```\\n