On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Michael Stefaniuc wrote: > On 08/04/2011 11:17 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > We were considering making some changes in the interaction with Coccinelle > > that would break backward compatability: > > > > 1. Currently regular expression matching is indicated by ~=. Perl uses =~ > > so we were considering to use that instead. It might make it more clear > > that the regular expression matches a substring rather than the whole > > identifier. > Hmm... could that be used to transition to PCRE based regexp without > breaking backwards compatibility? With a depreciation warning for '~=' > and OCaml(STR) syntax. Keeping both forever without a warning would not > be good as swapping ~= is very easy to do but very hard to spot.
We talked about that, but it seems like it could be very confusing for someone who doesn't know perl. > > 2. Currently the options have the form, eg, -no_includes. We could change > > them to eg --no-includes. > +1 > > But what would be the opposite? Something like this would be nice: > --includes=all (-all_includes) > --includes=local (-local_includes) > --includes=recursive (-recursive_includes) > --includes=none as a synonym for --no-includes So we can keep --no-includes? I use it around 90% of the time, and --includes=none looks like a lot of typing... > -include_headers should change the name then to --process-headers or > something along those lines. OK. > > 3. The comment was made that the two names cocci(nelle) and spatch are > > confusing. Should we more consistently use one or the other? Which? > > (Personally I prefer cocci(nelle), because it is more consistent with the > > documentation and publications, and because I don't think spatch is > > unique.) > cocci or coccinelle would be great! > > > 4. Are there any options that should have new names? > -smpl_file is kinda long for an option that is always needed for the > main coccinelle use mode. Having a short form for it would be nice. Actually, above you suggested using cocci, so it would be --cocci-file (even longer). > But what about going crazy and adding some DWIM to coccinelle when no > command options are given? > cocci <foo.cocci> <bar.c> [baz.c ...] > instead of spatch -smpl_file <foo.cocci> <bar.c> [baz.c ...] One of the original developers was really opposed to this. > cocci <foo.cocci> > instead of spatch -parse_cocci <foo.cocci> > > cocci <bar.c> [baz.c ...] > instead of spatch -parse_c <bar.c> [baz.c ...] > > Of course non-command options should not change the above behavior, e.g.: > cocci --macro-file <macros> <bar.c> > should still do a --parse-c > > > 5. Anything else that would involve removing something? > The handling of macro/iso files to extend by default the builtin ones > instead of replacing them. Or at least make it possible to do that. For iso files, you should really use "using" in the semantic patch. I only use -iso_file for getting rid of all isomorphisms, by using an empty file. Thanks! julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci (Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
