Makes sense.
Reviewed-by: Connor Abbott
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Previously, this case was being handled in match_expression prior to
> calling match_value. However, there is really no good reason for this
> given that match_value has all of the information it n
Previously, this case was being handled in match_expression prior to
calling match_value. However, there is really no good reason for this
given that match_value has all of the information it needs. Also, they
weren't being handled properly in the commutative case and putting it in
match_value gi
