fix: improve layer_yj comment with questions and possibilities

Author: dshemetov

R/new_epipredict_steps/layer_yeo_johnson.R

@@ -117,10 +117,16 @@ slather.layer_epi_YeoJohnson <- function(object, components, workflow, new_data,
   )
 
   # TODO: There are many possibilities here:
-  # - (a) the terms can be empty, where we should probably default to all_outcomes()
-  # - (b) explicitly giving all_outcomes(), we end here with terms being empty
-  # - (c) if the user just specifies .pred, then we have to infer the outcome from the mold
-  # - (d) the user might specify outcomes of the form .pred_ahead_1_cases, .pred_ahead_7_cases, etc.
+  # - (a) the terms can be empty, where we should probably default to
+  #   all_outcomes().
+  # - (b) explicitly giving all_outcomes(), we end here with terms being empty,
+  #   which doesn't seem right; need to make sure we pull in all the outcome
+  #   columns here. The question is what form should they have?
+  # - (c) if the user just specifies .pred, then we have to infer the outcome
+  #   from the mold, which is simple enough and the main case I have working.
+  # - (d) the user might specify outcomes of the form .pred_ahead_1_cases,
+  #   .pred_ahead_7_cases, etc. Is that the right format? Trying those out now
+  #   and getting errors downstream from forecast().
   # Get the columns to transform.
   exprs <- rlang::expr(c(!!!object$terms))
   pos <- tidyselect::eval_select(exprs, components$predictions)