>>> I too recall that seemingly redundant entries were noticed during >>> the review and at least back then removing the seemingly redundant >>> ones caused failures in rewriting. >> >> I am curious if the redundancy can be reconsidered once more. >> >> Do you refer to open issues around source code reformatting >> and pretty-printing together with the Coccinelle software here? > > Sorry, I do not follow. > > If you are asking if I am interested in following bleeding edge > Coccinelle development and use this project as a guinea pig to do so, I did not ask this. You mentioned “failures”. - I became curious then if corresponding software development challenges can be clarified a bit more. > then the answer is no. Such feedback is reasonable. > I'd rather see us instead staying on the trailing edge ;-) > to make sure that we use common denominator features that are known > to be available in all widely deployed and perhaps a bit dated versions > that come with popular distros. I find that I am proposing script adjustments within the basic feature set for the semantic patch language here. Further fine-tuning will become possible, won't it? Regards, Markus
