>> Does the script constraint syntax allow more programming language code there? > > For all practical purposes, no.
If you would like to be so strict, I wonder then about the curly brackets in the published test example. https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/cbc751b30d9e02390d60ebed643c8e4a3fa0bb2b/tests/idcon_python.cocci#L1 > Concretely, the script constraint code is initially parsed using a C parser, I find such an information interesting to some degree. Why do you pass data to a software component for “C” at this place? > not a parser for the script language. I do not see that would be needed in the restricted use case. > Function calls, of the form f(a,b,c) are in the intersection of C and the > supported scripting languages. Have you got more control about the construction of a single function call? >>> You can set up your @initialize:python@ code to import whatever you want. >> >> I would prefer to keep initialisation code for the implementation of the >> predicate function closely together with the call of the included >> metavariable. > > You are most welcome to implement in ocaml the lexer and parser for the > scripting language of your choice. It seems that I stumble once again on special cases which become relevant for code composability in bigger usage scenarios. I am trying to clarify the existing programming interfaces for the semantic patch language a bit more as usual. Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
