On Sun, 19 Jul 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >>> @@ > >>> type T; > >>> T x; > >> > >> Would the specification "type x" be also sufficient? > > > > Not at all. That would make x be a type. You want it to be an > > expression, of some type. > > It seems that I do not understand this distinction at the moment. > > I would interpret this part more in the way that a SmPL metavariable > is simply renamed from "T" to "x".
typedef int mytype; mytype x; Clearly this would not be the same as typedef int x; > > > >>> identifier f; > >>> void v; > >>> @@ > >>> > >>> ( > >>> f(...)@v; > >>> | > >>> *f(...)@x; > >>> ) > >> > >> Does the first pattern take precedence over the last one > > > > Yes, always. > > Thanks for your clarification. > > > I am still unfamiliar with the consequences from the use of > variables like "v" and "x" when they are not position variables > as you suggest in your example script. They match the closest enclosing expression. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
