> Do I stumble on another open issue if I would dare to reuse the SmPL > construct "<+... ...+>" for such an use case again?
If there were an open issue that I knew of, I would have probably fixed it. <+... ...+> is useful when you to match a larger top-level piece of code, and want to see if some subterm appears in it, one or more times. But if your pattern matches the whole top-level piece of code itself, then there is no point to use <+... ...+>. Either your pattern is there or it is not. If itis there, it will be matched with just the pattern itself. There is no need for <+... ...+>, because you are not looking for a subterm of anything. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
