Correct results of steps with mixed prose and function calls#123
Merged
Conversation
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The output of exec() calls was already recorded in a
Returnline, but that value was being duplicated as the enclosing step'sResult. That led to clarifying the place of code inlines in descriptive paragraphs, and realizing we could translate the prose as a no-opOperation::Prosevariant so that if trailing prose is present then the result of the step is then correctly theUnitusvalue.This extended into the anonymous "Step 0" created when consequential operations are present in a procedure description. This has been re-translated as
Operation::Preludeand then if function calls are present then they are properly entered and recorded.Cleanup noise from test output.