> Some time ago, the idea of putting constraints expressed as scripts was
> discussed
> (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.coccinelle/1928).
I am curious if the discussion (from December 2011) will be continued
around a topic like "assignments and support for SmPL rule extensions".
> This has now been implemented,
Interesting …
> only for position variables and only for ocaml scripting:
I hope that this software limitation can be changed anyhow
in the future.
> The basic notation is:
>
> position p : script:ocaml(params) { expression };
>
> Params can only be inherited metavariables.
Would you like to clarify the specification of such parameters
a bit more?
> Due to parsing constraints, the expression has to be a C expression,
> even though the script language is OCaml.
How do you think about to explain this restriction better?
> Fortunately, it is possible to make an OCaml function call that
> looks just like a C function call.
I am unsure if I understand the consequences from this information
good enough.
> The expression can also refer to the metavariable p being defined.
Nice …
> The expression should return true or false, ie true if the proposed value
> of p is acceptable as a match, and false if it is not.
Do you describe the introduction of generic predicate functions here?
> A real-life example is:
> position jp : script:ocaml() { check_in_a_hunk("P",plus_hunks,jp) };
>
> Any thoughts about the syntax? For example, I don't think that the
> script: and the { } are strictly necessary from a parsing point of view.
I find that extra delimiter characters will help to make such
source code a bit easier to read.
> This could be extended to other metavariable types, and eventully to Python.
I am curious on corresponding software evolution.
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
