>> @replacement3@
>> identifier x;
>> @@
>> -int
>> +int*
>> x;
>> <+...
>> -f
>> +g
>> (x);
>> ...+>
>
> His example shows that he wants to change a parameter type,
He would like to call a function which gets a single pointer passed
instead of an integer by possibly varying variables.
> no
On Mon, 27 May 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > In other words, in my original code "int x" is passed to "void f(int)" as a
> > paramter,
> > and I would like to apply the following transformations:
>
> How do you think about to try a SmPL change specification out like the
> following?
>
> @re
> In other words, in my original code "int x" is passed to "void f(int)" as a
> paramter,
> and I would like to apply the following transformations:
How do you think about to try a SmPL change specification out like the
following?
@replacement3@
identifier x;
@@
-int
+int*
x;
<+...
-f
+g
(x
>> @replacement@
>> identifier x;
>> @@
>> -int
>> +int*
>> x; >
>>
>> In which scopes would you like to add the asterisk for the usage of a pointer
>> data type?
…
> 1) "x" has a type of "int *"
The asterisk addition seems to work for (local) variables.
> 2) the new "int *x" gets passed to a
On 27.05.19 16:16, Markus Elfring wrote:
Am I missing something?
It depends on details.
Your initial transformation approach can be written also as follows.
@replacement@
identifier x;
@@
-int
+int*
x; >
In which scopes would you like to add the asterisk for the usage of a pointer
data typ
> Am I missing something?
It depends on details.
Your initial transformation approach can be written also as follows.
@replacement@
identifier x;
@@
-int
+int*
x;
In which scopes would you like to add the asterisk for the usage of a pointer
data type?
Do you expect that function parameters s
