I assume that this approach has got various consequences if you choose to
support C syntax and SmPL rule features by the single interface
"metavariable". I imagine that it would be useful to offer separate interfaces
for SmPL rule management and syntax handling.
I don't understand any of the above.
I try again to explain my understanding of functionality from the semantic patch
language so far.
Coccinelle know what kind of term the pattern matches. That is the kind
of metavariable that is implicitly declared.
I do not see that they are implicitly declared. I see the situation in the way
that metavariables are explicitly specified in the SmPL declaration block.
http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/docs/main_grammar002.html#metadecl
The most "data types" for metavariables correspond to concrete syntax elements
in the C programming language. There is a clear mapping between them, isn't it?
A SmPL rule contains more and different settings. So I imagine that an
alternative wording would be needed to refer to such a rule from a metavariable.
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci
(Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
