On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 05:29:10PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion. It's not strictly related to the fix I guess,
> but of course you're right, and we can indeed improve this part and
> replace the check with an assert.
Thanks for the new version of the patch. I have been playing a bit
today, and finished with the version attached. Some comments have
been tweaked, and I have moved the test in the block with the other
invalid cases for consistency, adding an extra test able to trigger a
similar error within the transformation step where a parse context
exists. It is a bit late now so I cannot push that today, but I'll
do that tomorrow.
--
Michael