> Nicely said; I agree 100% with you that the priority of this project > is to use these *.cocci transformations in such a way that they are > absolutely safe Such a goal can be generally desirable. But I got the impression that there are target conflicts to consider for the currently discussed SmPL script. The available transformation approaches show different open issues, don't they? Your desire is easier to fulfil for other change patterns. > ---so that humans do not have to spend time sifting the result through > to find accidental bad transformations. Automatic source code analysis contains the usual risk for false positives. How many efforts would we like to invest in improving corresponding software solutions? > And thanks for taking time to very clearly explain why the proposed > rewrite is not something we want to take. Would you like to check once more if additional update candidates will be found in the source files with the presented SmPL script variant? Regards, Markus
