>> 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.
It seems that I observed a few software limitations again a moment ago. > <+... ...+> 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. Thanks for your promising feedback. Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
