On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:28:02PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Actually, the code initializes it on the first call (recursing is
> false) and asserts that it must have been already initialized in a
> recursive (recursing is true) call.
I have actually kept your simplified version.
> Okay, sure. Maybe it's better to write the comment inside the if
> block, because if recursing is true, we don't drop yet.
Sure.
> Thoughts on suggestion to expand the test case?
No objections to that, so done as per the attached. Does that match
what you were thinking about?
--
Michael
