On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > >>> +@search exists@ > >>> +local idexpression id; > >>> +expression x,e,e1; > >>> +position p1,p2; > >>> +type T,T1,T2; > >>> +@@ > >>> + > >>> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x) > >>> +... when != e = id > >> > >> I suggest to increase your software development attention also for > >> another implementation detail. > >> Source code analysis triggers challenges for safe data flow handling. > >> the semantic patch language supports search specifications for > >> the exclusion of specific assignments. > >> > >> Does this SmPL code contain a questionable order for the source > >> and target metavariables? > >> Can the following variant be more appropriate? > >> > >> + ... when != id = e > > > > This is possible, but I think unlikely. > > Would you dare to interpret my update suggestion (reordering of two identifiers) > as a required SmPL script correction? I didn't suggest to reorder anything. Both are needed. And, no I don't consider it to be a required suggestion. In practice, reassigning such a variable is very unlikely. julia
