On Sat, 22 Aug 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> * Do I need to fiddle with another SmPL disjunction to express > >> the possibility that "var" could be more than a simple identifier? > > > > Ultimately, var shouldend up at an identifier, so I don't see the need. > > How do you think about a variant like the following? > > (expression)->element This is certainly possible. Depends whether you want the innermost variable or the outermost expression. > > > >> * How should the support for longer arrow chains be specified? > > > > No idea what you are asking, but I am not keen on adding yet another > > metavariable type for this, which anyway doesn't correspond to anything in > > the C grammar. > > Does the following approach make my consideration a bit more clear? > > var->(expression)->(expression)->element This makes no sense. If you have a->b->c->d->e, then eg b->c->d is not an expression. It has no value. julia > > How should a more detailed pointer access variation be handled here? > > Regards, > Markus > _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
