>> If you would insist on the specification of such an assignment exclusion >> for a SmPL ellipsis: >> Can we agree on a correct order? > > I don't get your point. I propose to take another closer look at a bit of SmPL code. > There is no correct order. I have got an other software development view here. > Each order expresses something different. I agree to this information. > The order that is currently in the semantic patch is the one > that is more likely in practice. Please check once more. … +@search exists@ +local idexpression id; +expression x,e,e1; +position p1,p2; … +@@ + +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x) +... when != e = id … Or: … + ... when != id = e … Which SmPL specification will achieve the desired software behaviour? Regards, Markus
