Add some comments in check that required some reverse engineering #4780
Conversation
|
Hopefully these make sense, I had saved these in a branch a while ago, and thought I should do something with them. |
While reading check I had to figure some things out that were not trivial, and I saved them with comments.
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <[email protected]>
| @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ struct PackageImports { | |||
| : package_id(package_id), node_id(node_id) {} | |||
|
|
|||
| // The identifier of the imported package. | |||
| // | |||
| // The current package uses the `IdentifierId::Invalid` id. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This semantic isn't specific to CheckUnit. It's in check.cpp, PackagingNames, SemIR::File, etc. I don't think it makes sense to start documenting separately in every place. Maybe it'd be better to find a central way to document this? You could probably add an alias if you prefer (or, PackagingNames is what it all stems from, so it could just be commented there).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To be sure, with an alias, I'm thinking something like a documenting IdentifierId::DefaultPackage or something. But we already have LibraryNameId, so another option would be to add a similar PackageIdentifierId type.
While reading check I had to figure some things out that were not trivial, and I saved them with comments.