On 25.08.2019 18:30, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> +(
>> +* !likely(E)
>> +|
>> +* !unlikely(E)
>> +)
>
> Can the following code variant be nicer?
>
> +*! \( likely \| unlikely \) (E)
>
>
>> +(
>> +-!likely(E)
>> ++unlikely(E)
>> +|
>> +-!unlikely(E)
>> ++likely(E)
>> +)
>
> I would find the following SmPL change specification more succinct.
>
> +(
> +-!likely
> ++unlikely
> +|
> +-!unlikely
> ++likely
> +)(E)
>
>
>> +coccilib.org.print_todo(p[0], "WARNING use unlikely instead of !likely")
> …
>> +msg="WARNING: Use unlikely instead of !likely"
>> +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], msg)
>
> 1. I find such a message construction nicer without the extra variable “msg”.
>
> 2. I recommend to make the provided information unique.
> * How do you think about to split the SmPL disjunction in the rule “r”
> for this purpose?
>
> * Should the transformation become clearer?
Thank you for the review, I will prepare v2.
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
