Re: [Cocci] Checking the influence of “virtual” SmPL variables
>> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/35 > > This comment is completely irrelevant. I have got an other view. > There is a difference between a virtual rule, that one can declare > as being matched or not from the command line, and a virtual metavariable > in a script, that has to be bound for the script to be executed. There are different uses to consider for this kind of SmPL variable, aren't there? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Checking the influence of “virtual” SmPL variables
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > >>>virtual patch > >> > >> This variable should be omitted if it will not be used in subsequent SmPL > >> rules. > > > > There is no harm to have it. > > Can you get additional software development concerns if you would look at > a bug report on a topic like “Metavariables with the type "virtual" prevent > proper initialisation for Python scripts.” once more? > https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/35 This comment is completely irrelevant. There is a difference between a virtual rule, that one can declare as being matched or not from the command line, and a virtual metavariable in a script, that has to be bound for the script to be executed. julia___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Checking the influence of “virtual” SmPL variables
>>>virtual patch >> >> This variable should be omitted if it will not be used in subsequent SmPL >> rules. > > There is no harm to have it. Can you get additional software development concerns if you would look at a bug report on a topic like “Metavariables with the type "virtual" prevent proper initialisation for Python scripts.” once more? https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/35 Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
