> @@
> expression x;
> constant c1,c2;
> @@
>
> x = c1;
> (
> x = c1;
> |
> *x = c2;
> )
Thanks for your suggestion of the possible usage of a SmPL disjunction.
* Does it indicate a search attempt to match the first assignment statement
twice
(for the implementation of exclusion of duplicate
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > The expected difference can trigger the need to express this detail
> > by the usage of two identifiers based on the same metavariable type.
>
> I guess that this wording should be clarified a bit more according to
> the current software
> The expected difference can trigger the need to express this detail
> by the usage of two identifiers based on the same metavariable type.
I guess that this wording should be clarified a bit more according to
the current software development status around the semantic patch language.
A
