> Why do you want to remove the semicolon?
I have shown a transformation example where a function parameter should be
replaced
by a previous function call.
Thus a semicolon should be intentionally be deleted.
> If you want to find the call somewhere in the next statement, you can say
>
> (
> S
>> I have shown a transformation example where a function parameter should be
>> replaced
>> by a previous function call.
>> Thus a semicolon should be intentionally be deleted.
>
> That makes no sense.
This transformation part is working as expected (under constraints) already.
> You can't
>>> You can't have an expression directly following a statement.
>>> Only statements follow other statements.
>>
>> This information is reasonable.
>>
>> Does the Coccinelle software insist on the specification of another semicolon
>> in the SmPL script for the identification of an adjustable
On Sat, 28 Nov 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> I have shown a transformation example where a function parameter should be
> >> replaced
> >> by a previous function call.
> >> Thus a semicolon should be intentionally be deleted.
> >
> > That makes no sense.
>
> This transformation part is
On Sat, 28 Nov 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Why do you want to remove the semicolon?
>
> I have shown a transformation example where a function parameter should be
> replaced
> by a previous function call.
> Thus a semicolon should be intentionally be deleted.
That makes no sense. You
On Sat, 28 Nov 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The following small SmPL script gets successfully parsed by the Coccinelle
> software.
>
>
> @Replacement@
> expression call, input, target;
> identifier gs;
> @@
> -\( g_string_assign@gs \| g_string_append@gs \) (target, input);
> call
Hello,
The following small SmPL script gets successfully parsed by the Coccinelle
software.
@Replacement@
expression call, input, target;
identifier gs;
@@
-\( g_string_assign@gs \| g_string_append@gs \) (target, input);
call (
- target
+ gs (target, input)
);
But if I would
