typecore: comment the backtracking logic in type_label_exp#12054
Merged
Octachron merged 1 commit intoocaml:trunkfrom Mar 2, 2023
Merged
typecore: comment the backtracking logic in type_label_exp#12054Octachron merged 1 commit intoocaml:trunkfrom
Octachron merged 1 commit intoocaml:trunkfrom
Conversation
t6s
reviewed
Mar 1, 2023
salvaging the textual bits of ocaml#11900
901ea4a to
dac9dc0
Compare
goldfirere
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2023
Member
Author
|
Thanks! (This could probably be approved on behalf of @goldfirere and merged, but I cannot do it myself.) |
Octachron
approved these changes
Mar 2, 2023
Member
Octachron
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The comments look fine to me too.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a refactoring follow-up of #11536, a second try after #11900 failed to gather support.
#11900 tried to clarify the code structure itself, but was found unconvincing.
The present PR merely comments the existing code.
(cc @goldfirere)