On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> 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
The syntax is curly brackets around a C expression.
> > 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?
Seemed convenient. Perhaps it could be possible to parse to a closing },
but your goal seems to be to put more complex terms in the script code
that might then include }, making things more complicated.
> > 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?
No.
julia
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
