On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04 2015, Cyril Hrubis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi! > >> > Would you like to be more explicit in the semantic patch language > >> > around source code adjustments which should also affect > >> > corresponding comments? > >> > >> It seems complicated, and people don't always follow the same comventions. > >> > >> Probably it is thinking that the code looks like this: > >> > >> /*some comment on b */ > >> int b; > > > > That explains it. > > > >> I could change it so that this strategy is only followed if /*some comment > >> on b */ starts at the beginning of the line. > > > > That sounds good. What would be the strategy for the other case then? > > It seems to be a reasonable heuristic that a comment beginning on a line > which also contains code is attached to that code, while a comment > beginning on a line by itself is attached to the following code (whether > that means one or more lines of code is of course impossible to guess). > > So, in the former case, if the code is simply removed, the comment should > also vanish. But what if the semantic patch contains + code? Something > like > > - int hash; > + unsigned int hash; > > In that case, it's probably best to leave the comment. But one can > probably always find examples where whatever coccinelle does, something > else would have been better. For example, if the comment should stay but > needs rewording, good luck teaching any computer program to do that. > > In short, nothing can save one from doing a manual review of the > generated patch, especially when comments are involved. I agree. But I also agree with Cyril that the current situation is not desirable, because the result is quite confusing. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
