> 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 selection of different metavariable types is supported already. https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/c6d7554edf7c4654aeae4d33c3f040e300682f23/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L199 So it seems to be occasionally appropriate to use metavariables with the same type while different names are chosen then for the corresponding variable declaration. Another SmPL script example: @test@ constant c1, c2; @@ x = * c1 ; x = * c2 ; Such a source code search specification is too generic so far when you would really like to determine if these assignments (or its elements) are equivalent or even identical (or not). I am looking again for possibilities to improve language distinctions here. * How can a single metavariable remember a mapping to a previous instance from its type? * How will it become possible to match only a subset of a known base type? * How often do you want to exclude something because of a previous match with a similar type? Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
