> We will also provide an example written in Python later. Will the code move from the commit description into a file for your next patch version?
> We first use this script to find out all the function names to be processed, I am still curious on how the output format selection will become clearer for the potentially desired automatic data conversion. > and then copy these function names into r1. Would this action be performed by another software build script? >>> +@initialize:python@ >>> +@@ >>> + >>> +seen = set() >>> + >>> +def add_if_not_present (p1, p2): >> >> It seems that you would like to use iteration functionality. I am waiting on another constructive answer for this implementation detail. >>> +x = @p1\(of_find_all_nodes\| >> >> I would find this SmPL disjunction easier to read without the usage >> of extra backslashes. >> >> +x = >> +(of_… >> +|of_… >> +)@p1(...); >> >> >> Which sort criteria were applied for the generation of the shown >> function name list? > > As julia pointed out, your current writing is not compiled. * It can be needed for a while to specify the mentioned position variable at an other place. * Would you like to adjust the SmPL coding style here? * Will the application of sort criteria be clarified for such identifier lists? >>> +if (x == NULL || ...) S >>> +... when != e = (T)x >>> + when != true x == NULL … > Our previous version used the "when any" clause, so we need > "when != true x == NULL". I suggest to reconsider further aspects for such constraints. > We can delete this code exclusion specification for this version. I would find another assignment exclusion more appropriate at this place. Regards, Markus