>> * Can a SmPL specification like “v << check2.rc;” look also reasonable here >> (despite of the error message which is reported so far)? > > Many things may look reasonable.
This is generally fine. > I tell you how Coccinelle is designed, Thanks for such feedback. > you can ignore the information if you like. I am trying once more to achieve another bit of collateral evolution in this software area. Will it become helpful to use content also from inherited metavariables directly (instead of referring only to the base item)? Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
