>> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/cbc751b30d9e02390d60ebed643c8e4a3fa0bb2b/tests/idcon_python.cocci#L1
>
> The syntax is curly brackets around a C expression.
I do not understand this information completely at the moment.
>>> 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 āCā at this place?
>
> Seemed convenient.
I can not follow your views for software convenience with this detail so far.
> Perhaps it could be possible to parse to a closing },
I have got another idea in the meantime.
I propose to distinguish these delimiters better for different use cases.
> but your goal seems to be to put more complex terms in the script code
> that might then include }, making things more complicated.
I hope that it will be possible to pass growing programming scripts there.
>> Have you got more control about the construction of a single function call?
>
> No.
I find this answer strange.
How do you think about to support cases like named and unnamed (ad hoc)
predicates there?
Examples:
@ad_hoc_replacement@
identifier ID: script:python() { return ID in ['a', 'c'] };
@@
-ID
+36
@initialize:python@
@@
def is_watched(id):
return id in ['a', 'c']
@structured_replacement@
identifier ID: script:python() ā is_watched;
@@
-ID
+18
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
