>> I observe that the following SmPL code variant can result also in
>> a significant difference.
>>
>> @find@
>> expression action, check, result;
>> position p;
>> statement is, es;
>> @@
>> result = action(...);
>> if (
>> ( <+... result ...+>
>> & check@p
>> ) )
>> is
>> else
>> es
>>
>>
>> How will the application of SmPL conjunctions evolve further?
>
> I really have no idea what you are talking about.
I suggest to take another look for the software behaviour.
> that contains all of the semantic patch variants that you want to have
> These semantic patches should involve no use of databases.
Please compare details with the following SmPL code example.
@find@
expression action, check, result;
position p;
statement is, es;
@@
result = action(...);
if@p (
( <+... result ...+>
& check
) )
is
else
es
Under which circumstances will the Coccinelle software provide duplicate data
for their processing by (Python) script rules?
> The database itself doesn't bring any value.
Another unique constraint violation was noticed by using such technology.
I am curious when you are going to take related functionality better into
account.
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
