> There was supposed to be a metavariable type function for that purpose, > but it was never completely implemented.
Do you plan to continue any software development for the separation between variable, macro and function names? > I think this is too complicated and not needed. I have got a different opinion if you would like to reuse experiences from other approaches. - AspeCt-oriented C compiler - AspectC++ > You can just match the return, and then write a smpl rule or script rule > afterwards, > possibly using depends on if there is no other way to make the connection > between the rules. I assume that the patch specification will only affect a single return instruction in a source file. How can any instructions (advice) be added to a function implementation after your parsing process reached the end of the function body? > If someone wants to do aspect-oriented programming there are perhaps better > tools for that. I find that your tool belongs to the aspect-oriented application domain because a couple of advices can be expressed in your patch data format (by SmPL). I am curious if the specification can be made a made a bit more convenient and safer for corresponding source code adjustments. Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci (Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
