Brian R. Murphy

@rahxephon89 and @wrwg for visibility

This is rendered somewhat uninteresting due to [#11493](https://github.com/aptos-labs/aptos-core/pull/11493), which incidentally causes tests here under v2-tests/ to be compiled with v2.

May be related to #11708.

#6 for v2 is really puzzling. I had already been pondering this simplification rule, so #1-5 for v1 is unsurprising: `{ e1; e2 } + { e3; e4 }` -->...

Can you provide a more complete example test case?

I just added a test to https://github.com/aptos-labs/aptos-core/pull/11584 which shows the current errors for V1 and V2.

@davidiw Who owns these move-examples? It looks like a bug, but doesn't have a locally obvious fix. (Is it ok if the set_up function doesn't return the `resource_addr`?

Not sure how useful this is as a pedagogical example after I fixed it. The right fix is to make the `set_up` function not an `entry`. Then things are happy.

Maybe you forgot to push some updated code?

Ok, I've been seeing more rust-analyzer crashes recently as I've been working with more aptos tests, so I'm resurrecting this PR. I've updated it to remove deleted .rs files and...