> You're not actually showing a need.
I disagree. - Our needs are just different.
> Ie you don't have a real piece of software in which this transformation is
> actually needed.
Under which circumstances will the clarification of related components
become more attractive?
Regards,
Markus
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> @replacement@
> >> @@
> >> -auto
> >> +my_type
> >
> > There is nothing to support this.
>
> Thanks for such feedback.
>
>
> > So far I don't have the impression that anyone has had a need for it either.
>
> How often will I be the first one who sh
>> @replacement@
>> @@
>> -auto
>> +my_type
>
> There is nothing to support this.
Thanks for such feedback.
> So far I don't have the impression that anyone has had a need for it either.
How often will I be the first one who shows a need for further software
extensions?
Would anybody like to
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > I think it expects a type as well. I don't know if that is a reasonable
> > assumption in C or in C++.
>
> Can a source code transformation approach like the following make sense?
>
> @replacement@
> @@
> -auto
> +my_type
There is nothing to suppo
> I think it expects a type as well. I don't know if that is a reasonable
> assumption in C or in C++.
Can a source code transformation approach like the following make sense?
@replacement@
@@
-auto
+my_type
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> spatch --parse-cocci
replace_auto1.cocci
i
