On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, wen.yan...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> > > when != e = id achieves this behavior.
> >
> > I can not agree to this view completely because of the meaning that is
> > connected
> > with these variable identifiers.
> >
> > Both metavariables share the kind “expression”. So I can imagi
> > when != e = id achieves this behavior.
>
> I can not agree to this view completely because of the meaning that is
> connected
> with these variable identifiers.
>
> Both metavariables share the kind “expression”. So I can imagine
> that there is an intersection for the source code match poss
>> …
>> +@search exists@
>> +local idexpression id;
>> +expression x,e,e1;
>> +position p1,p2;
>> …
>> +@@
>> +
>> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
>> +... when != e = id
>> …
>>
>> Or:
>>
>> …
>> + ... when != id = e
>> …
>>
>>
>> Which SmPL specification will achieve the desired software behavi
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> If you would insist on the specification of such an assignment exclusion
> >> for a SmPL ellipsis:
> >> Can we agree on a correct order?
> >
> > I don't get your point.
>
> I propose to take another closer look at a bit of SmPL code.
>
>
> > There
>> If you would insist on the specification of such an assignment exclusion
>> for a SmPL ellipsis:
>> Can we agree on a correct order?
>
> I don't get your point.
I propose to take another closer look at a bit of SmPL code.
> There is no correct order.
I have got an other software development
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Would you dare to interpret my update suggestion (reordering of two
> >> identifiers)
> >> as a required SmPL script correction?
> >
> > I didn't suggest to reorder anything.
>
> This is obvious according to your acknowledgement for the sixth ver
>> Would you dare to interpret my update suggestion (reordering of two
>> identifiers)
>> as a required SmPL script correction?
>
> I didn't suggest to reorder anything.
This is obvious according to your acknowledgement for the sixth version
of this evolving SmPL script.
> Both are needed.
If
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> +@search exists@
> >>> +local idexpression id;
> >>> +expression x,e,e1;
> >>> +position p1,p2;
> >>> +type T,T1,T2;
> >>> +@@
> >>> +
> >>> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
> >>> +... when != e = id
> >>
> >> I suggest to increase your softwar
>>> +@search exists@
>>> +local idexpression id;
>>> +expression x,e,e1;
>>> +position p1,p2;
>>> +type T,T1,T2;
>>> +@@
>>> +
>>> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
>>> +... when != e = id
>>
>> I suggest to increase your software development attention also for
>> another implementation detail.
>>
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > +@search exists@
> > +local idexpression id;
> > +expression x,e,e1;
> > +position p1,p2;
> > +type T,T1,T2;
> > +@@
> > +
> > +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
> > +... when != e = id
>
> I suggest to increase your software development attention
> +@search exists@
> +local idexpression id;
> +expression x,e,e1;
> +position p1,p2;
> +type T,T1,T2;
> +@@
> +
> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
> +... when != e = id
I suggest to increase your software development attention also for
another implementation detail.
Source code analysis trigger
11 matches
Mail list logo
