Document the meaning of sourceIndex "-1" in source mappings.#3653
Merged
Document the meaning of sourceIndex "-1" in source mappings.#3653
Conversation
axic
reviewed
Mar 6, 2018
docs/miscellaneous.rst
Outdated
| the json / npm compiler. | ||
|
|
||
| .. note :: | ||
| In the case of bytecode that is not associated with any particular source file, |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe extending it with In the case of bytecode (sections) that or using instructions instead of bytecode is less misleading. Having read it out of context (skipping the first two paragraphs) I thought it means that an entire bytecode is not associated with a file.
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair enough; I adjusted the commit slightly.
aab0905 to
154fd1d
Compare
chriseth
approved these changes
Mar 6, 2018
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Refs #3629.
I'm not yet particularly familiar with the technicalities here - is this a half-decent description of the case of #3629?